Writing Assignment - The Color Line and Dating in the SF Bay Area

The Signi@cance of Race in the Private Sphere: Asian Americans and Spousal Preferences

Sue Chow, Stanford University

Using qualitative analysis of narratives of United States-born Asians, this article examines how spousal preferences and views on interracial couples are affected by racial status inequalities. It argues that racial inequality affects those who prefer Whites, those who prefer Asians, those indicating no racial preferences, and those whose preferences changed through the life course. The dynamics of racialized preferences are explained by introducing the concept of racialized relationship capital, specifically the appeal of Euro-American vs. ethnic-racial relationship capital. The paper concludes by question- ing the popular notion that high rates of interracial marriage indicate successful assimi- lation for groups such as Asian Americans.

This paper examines the phenomenon of how a social structural context of racial inequality affects the intimate relationship preferences of racial minorities in the United States. Specifically, the narratives of United States-born Asians are examined to understand how coupling preferences and views on interracial cou- ples are affected by racial status inequalities between Asian Americans and European Americans.

The subject of interracial marriage has long fascinated researchers, and more recently the subject of Asian-White marriages has been the focus of sev- eral studies (Jacobs and Labov 1995; Aguirre, Saenz, and Hwang 1995; Hwang, Saenz, and Aguirre 1994; Lee and Yamanaka 1990; Sung 1990). The two most dominant approaches are the assimilation-acculturation and the exchange theory frameworks.

The assimilation framework has most often been used to look at Asian American outmarriages (Tinker 1982; Sung 1990; Murguia 1982; Spickard 1989). Based on the study of European assimilation, its proponents are generally “color blind” in that intermarriage with the dominant group is seen as the final stage in the assimilation process for Europeans as well as for racial minorities. The passage of generations is often used as a proxy for increasing acculturation which, along with increasing socio-economic status, is assumed to lead to the growing likelihood of outmarriage to the dominant group. Because the issues of racial inequality and dominant group determination are often sidestepped, re- searchers in this tradition have attributed the varying rates of outmarriage to the

Sociological Inquiv, Vol. 70, No. 1, Winter 2000, 1-29 02000 by the University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819

2 SUECHOW

degree of acculturation or to cultural constraints within minority communities (Weiss 1971; Tinker 1982).

A second popular approach to studying interracial marriage is the structural functionalist approach pioneered by Merton and Davis and often referred to as “hypergamy” theory (Merton 1941; Davis 1941). A variant of social exchange theory, hypergamy theory posits that because of America’s racial caste system, racial minorities such as Blacks would logically have to exchange material re- sources for racial status when marrying Whites. Unlike the assimilation ap- proach, hypergamy theory explicitly assumes that there is racial inequality in the United States and thereby predicts that interracial marriages would be affected by this basic inequality. Studies using hypergamy theory to study interracial mar- riages in the United States have yielded results that refute the theory (Heer 1974) as well as more recent studies that support it to varying degrees (Jacobs and Labov 1995; Shinagawa and Pang 1988).

While different in major respects, both approaches share similarities, par- ticularly in their method and data. With few exceptions, quantitative data are used for aggregate trend analysis, and the subjective dimension is missing.’ In general, social scientists have looked at the issue of interracial unions from the perspective of concerns such as how interracial marriages illustrate social ex- change principles and reflect whether or not successful assimilation has been achieved for racial minorities. Questions such as how a social structure of racial inequality affects the entire range of mate choices beyond those who choose to interracially marry and the perceptions of racial minorities themselves on the subject of race and mate choice remain unexamined. The purpose of this study is to use qualitative data from 154 long interviews with Chinese and Japanese Americans to systematically examine how race affects the coupling preferences of Asian Americans. As such, this paper represents one of the first attempts to examine the subjective perceptions of racial minorities themselves in order to shed light on the complex dynamics of the effect of racial inequality on the pri- vate sphere.

Racial Inequality and Private Behavior

There is much evidence showing that the dominance of Euro-Americans and continuing racial inequality in the public sphere (such as in schools and on the job) cause considerable stress as well as distress among racial minorities, particularly for African Americans (Feagin 1994; Cose 1993; Feagin 1992; Feagin 1991). There has, however, been little research on how structural in- equalities based on race affect the private sphere and more specificially, how race affects attitudes toward intimate interpersonal relationships. This dearth of re- search exists even though many researchers recognize that, as in the words of Omi and Winant, (1986, pp. 62-63) “the salience of race in the United States, far

ASIAN AMERICANS A N D SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 3

from being epiphenomena1 or secondary to other factors such as class, is a major axis of social organization and affects all aspects of social life.”

Although not systematically studied, there is empirical evidence suggesting that America’s social structural context of Euro-American dominance and perva- sive Eurocentrism have led to attempts on the part of racial minorities to model Euro-American cultural standards for personal attractiveness, a prime compo- nent in mate choice. For example, among African Americans, the valuing of light skin and straight hair is well known (St. Jean and Feagin 1998; Keith and Herring 1991). Less publicized, but just as well known among Asians is the greater valuation of European-looking features, especially in women. An exam- ple is the popularity of eye-enlarging operations among Asian American women (Kaw 1993).

Work by social psychologists showing that race operates as a prime status characteristic along with education, class, gender, and occupation (Lawler, Ridgeway, and Markovslq 1993) suggests that racial minorities may value not just European features but Euro-Americans as well. Although not explicitly ar- ticulated by exchange theorists, such greater valuation of Whites in interpersonal relationships by some racial minorities is assumed when “tradeoffs” involving exchanges of socioeconomic resources for racial status are hypothesized in hypergamy theory.

The subject of the impact of racial inequality on the private marital choices of racial minorities and how interracial unions are viewed by the latter is a little- researched area but one that is critical for understanding the multilevel effects of contemporary racism. There appears to be evidence of “structure-supporting’’ behavior manifested in both the acceptance of a Eurocentric aesthetic for per- sonal appearance and in the moderate support for the tradeoff thesis advanced by hypergamy/exchange theorists. But little is known about whether a wide- spread Eurocentric “looks aesthetic” necessarily means strong desires for Euro- American spouses, and even more importantly there is little knowledge about whether and how racial inequality may affect the general spousal preferences of racial minorities.

Asian Americans are the subjects for this study because they have so rarely been studied when the effects of racial inequality are researched. Moreover, high rates of Asian American outmarriage to the dominant group have been taken to be a model example of how unproblematic assimilation has occurred (Sung 1990; Tinker 1982; Spickard 1989). This view persists despite evidence show- ing that most Asian Americans continue to suffer discrimination in the labor market (Fong 1998; Ong and Blumenberg 1994; United States Commission on Civil Rights 1988), are the subjects of increasing racial violence (Fong 1998; Zinsmeister 1988), and are still perceived by significant numbers of White Americans to be social inferiors (Wilson 1996; Yoon 1995).

4 SUECHOW

At the same time, since the late 1960s, there is evidence of an oppositional consciousness of pan-Asian ethnic affirmation (Espiritu 1992): Like the Black, Brown, and Red power movements, the emphasis of the Asian American move- ment on “race cognizance” (Frankenberg 1993) and racial pride has led to the growth of pan-Asian organizations and an emergent pan-Asian identity. One ef- fect of such political developments on the private sphere is the rise in interethnic marriages among Asian Americans since the late 1960s (Shinagawa 1994).

Overall, although little research has been done on the subject, the political and social context suggests that the effects of contemporary racial inequality on private behavior, such as the mate choices of Asian Americans, are mixed. Euro- American dominance may instill in some the desire to have White partners while the same inequality, reinforced by the raciavethnic affirmation movements spawned in the ’ ~ O S , may lead other Asian Americans to seek to inmarry.

In any case, a study of Asian American perceptions of interracial coupling and of how race affects marital choices will tell us much about how race affects one important area of interpersonal relations. Moreover, because Asian Ameri- cans are assumed to be successfid assimilators and high outmarriage rates are taken to be one proof of that, an examination of subjective perceptions of how racial inequality affects mate choice will give us a better understanding of the nature and limits of successful assimilation for racial minorities in American so- ciety today.

Toward a Theory of Racial Inequality and Mate Choice

The purpose of this paper is not to present a full-fledged theoretical Erame- work, as it is primarily an empirical study. However, given the undeveloped state of studies on the subject, this section summarizes some key findings and offers the reader some rudimentary categories and thematic guides to understanding the interview data.

Overall, the results of this study show the following: First, although a Eurocentric “looks aesthetic” was widespread, mate choice varied considerably and shows interesting gender-specific differences. Second, to a significant extent the interviewees were affected by race and perceived racial differences in their mate choice, regardless of whether they expressed a preference for Euro- Americans, a preference for Asian Americans, or no preference. Two types of racialized “relationship capital” appear to underlie the attraction to either White or Asian American partners-the appeal of mainstream or “Euro-American rela- tionship capital” vs. the contrasting appeal of “ethnic-racial relationship capital.”

As used here, “relationship capital” is constituted by sets of beliefs about valued attributes, characteristics, and behavior associated with both significant others and relationships with these significant others which play an integral part in one’s sense of well-being and desired self-image. Interpersonal relationship

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 5

capita1 can be both valued individual- and/or group-based characteristics and may be actual or merely perceived. What concerns us most here are the group- based characteristics associated with race that are taken to be valued personal and interpersonal characteristics. Intimate relationships with those perceived to be bearers of these valued characteristics provide cultural and psychological cap- ital for those who subscribe to these beliefs.

Two types of racially associated relationship capital were most apparent from this study. For those who prefer White spouses, high valuation of attributes real or imagined, associated both with Euro-Americans and with having Euro- Americans as intimate partners was apparent. Whites were viewed as being more spontaneous, more physically attractive, more sensitive, more interesting, and more desirable. Moreover, self-images as well as relationships with Whites were often viewed in a similar vein. Structurally rooted in social inequalities, race, like other macrostatus dimensions (Lawler, Ridgeway, and Markovsky 1993, pp. 269-78), such as class, education, gender, and occupation, gives rise to cul- tural valuations favoring groups that rank high along particular dimensions. It is through these macrostatus effects that structural inequalities in power and privi- lege translate into differential evaluations of people in interpersonal encounters. Although these macrostatus dimensions are rooted in and are reinforced by structural inequalities, once they emerge they “have distinctive effects of their own” in the sense that they become deep-seated psychocultural belief systems “about the status value of individual attributes.” (Lawler, Ridgeway, and Markovsky 1993, p. 279) Within this context, the higher valuation of Whites and relationships with White spouses by some Asian Americans is consistent with the effects of living in a society where the enhanced power and privilege ac- corded Whites have given rise to the greater status valuation of attributes associ- ated with Euro-Americans.

The second type of racially associated relationship capital-ethnic-racial relationship capital-was evident in the narratives of those who expressed a clear preference for Asian American spouses; being married to a fellow Asian was seen as possessing a range of highly desired attributes from “greater com- fort level” to intuitive cultural and racial empathy and the preservation of an eth- nic culture stemming from an oppositional consciousness. Racial homogamy explains much of the dynamics behind the appeal of relationships with those from the same ethnichacia1 group. The fact that homogamy or the marital union of those who are similar along important dimensions such as race, class, and ed- ucation is the most common as well as most stable type of union (Carter and Glick 1976; Winch 1958; Burgess and Wallin 1943) indicates that social equal- ity-along one or more important social dimension-is a powerful force when people choose intimate partners. Since race, particularly non-White race, has been and remains a highly salient macrostatus characteristic denoting the lesser

6 SUECHOW

status of non-Whites relative to Whites, such racial status inequality is likely to give rise to homogamous attraction between same-race individuals at the same time that it creates the desire to acquire ”higher race” mates among others.

Third, the most unexpected finding from this study was the interchange- ability of both types of relationship capital. In other words, for some, preferences changed with either Euro-Americans or Asian Americans becoming more pre- ferred through the life course. Often reasons given for such preference changes were strikingly “racialized” in that stereotypic race-based attributes were freely assigned and used to explain the change in preference. Furthermore, for a sig- nificant number of people, no preference most often meant that both types of currency were acceptable or that they were not in a position to choose. This flu- idity of relationship capital may well reflect the structural position of Asian Americans in America’s racial hierarchy. Lieberson (1980, ch. 12) and others (Loewen 1988) have offered compelling evidence of the intermediate status of Asians in the racial order, and according to Okamura (198 1) structural location on an important axis of stratification such as ethnicity often determines the de- gree to which “situational ethnicity,” or different presentations of one’s ethnic self, may be practiced. For Asians, this interchangeability of relationship capital based on race could indicate that for racially intermediate groups, there is rela- tively more freedom to choose between two contrasting forms of race-associated relationship capital, as the possibility of intimate relations exists not only with same-race partners but also with dominant group individuals.

Fourth, I found widespread awareness of racial status inequality between Whites and Asians as well as conscious recognition of the possibility that such inequality may affect the motives behind interracial relationships. However, de- spite this recognition, many respondents felt much conflict in openly verbalizing their discomfort at witnessing interracial relationships. Discourses such as the principle of “freedom of choice,” the ideal of colorblindness, and the possibility of “true love” transcending race were consistently brought up as caveats to counter their own professions of suspicion and discomfort upon seeing inter- racial couples.

Method

This study was based on 154 interviews conducted between 1994 and 1996 with second and later generation Chinese and Japanese A m e r i c a n ~ . ~ I conducted 126 of the interviews, and 28 were conducted by research assistants. Altogether 7 3 men and 81 women were interviewed as part of a larger project on Asian American assimilation which included detailed questions on datinglrelationship history, spousal preferences, and opinions on interracial coupling. Of the 154 in- terviews, 136 were conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 7

Angeles Metropolitan area, while 18 were conducted with persons living in the suburbs of Philadelphia.

Those interviewed were all United States-born, and almost all were col- lege-educated, middle-class, and under 56 years of age. This specific population was emphasized, as the purpose of the study was to understand the nature of as- similation among a group of racial minorities living in a historical environment that was more conducive to assimilation than ever before and possessing the so- cioeconomic characteristics associated with those most likely to outmarry and assimilate rapidly. Native-born Asian Americans were the subjects of this study because it was felt that the assimilation process could be substantially different for the foreign-born, especially those for whom English is a second language. The decision was made to focus upon Chinese and Japanese Americans largely because second- and later-generation members were more abundant in these two populations. Initial contacts were made through friends, acquaintances, and eth- nic organizations. Subsequent “snowballing” offered an increasingly wide range of choices as to profession, age, marital status, and degree of exposure to White Americans. At this later stage, attempts were made to ensure a more balanced representation of professions, work and residential environments, marital status, and degree of interaction with Whites. Thirty-six was the median age with 140 respondents, or approximately ninety percent, falling under 56 years of age. Thirty-three of the men and 49 of the women were married or cohabiting with someone at the time of the interview. Interview length ranged from one and one- half hours to 5 hours, while the average length was three hours. Subjects were asked 89 questions which included the following topics: childhood history and environment, family culture, datinghelationship history, spousal preferences as well as changes in preferences, views on interracial relationships, work experi- ences, experiences with discrimination, and ethnichacia1 identification.

All the interviews were taped and transcribed for analysis. Transcripts were read several times, and coding for data analysis followed the guidelines delin- eated by Strauss (1987) for qualitative research. Respondents were selected to capture a wide range of environments where later generation middle-class Asian Americans are commonly found (e.g., engineering and medical professions, White suburban residence.). Theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss 1967) was employed in that theoretical possibilities led to additional sampling of respon- dents with certain characteristics. Emergent conceptual categories were gener- ated from repeated readings of the interview data, and McCracken’s (1988, pp. 48-52) suggestions for quality control were employed at the final stage of data analysis.

Regardless of how much care has been taken in the selection and analysis of data, generalizing from qualitative data is always difficult as are subgroup

8 SUECHOW

comparisons; thus whether or not the results are truly representative of the expe- riences and outlook of later-generation, middle-class Chinese and Japanese Americans remains an open question. However, given the extensiveness of the data and the attention given to the sampling of respondents from a comprehen- sive range of backgrounds, it can reasonably be said that the study has captured a wide array of experiences and opinions, and offers a small window into the subjective world of later-generation, middle-class Asian Americans who came of age in the “post-Civil Rights” era (1960s and after).

This paper is organized into several sections. First, a brief introduction to outmarriage trends among Chinese and Japanese Americans is presented; sec- ond, results on respondents’ preferences are presented and gender differences discussed; third, aesthetic preferences and the reasons behind the different cate- gories of spousal preferences are explored; fourth, preference changes are dis- cussed; fifth, awareness of status inequality is directly explored by presenting respondents’ general thoughts on Asian-White couples; and in the final section the significance of the findings are discussed.

Trends in Interracial Marriage among Chinese and Japanese Americans

When speaking of interracial marriage among Chinese and Japanese Americans, it must be noted that the majority of such unions are with White A m e r i ~ a n s . ~ Among those who are not interracially married, the majority are married to someone from their own ethnic group.

Historically, East AsiadWhite unions were quite rare until the 1960s when marriages of Chinese and Japanese Americans to Whites increased dramati- cally. Available estimates of interracial marriage among the Nisei (second gen- eration Japanese Americans) who were of marrying age between roughly the 1930s and 1950s show that very few were involved in interracial union^.^ Little is known about American-born Chinese Americans of comparable age since Chinese Exclusion laws effectively prevented family formation for most Chinese in the United States until after World War 11. Anecdotal evidence indi- cates that some Chinese men did marry lower-class White women, and in the South, Chinese maleh3lack female marriages occurred on a small scale before World War II.6

Looking at historical trends, the most conspicuous phenomenon is the dra- matic rise in interracial marriage among Chinese and Japanese Americans for the cohorts that came of age in the 1960s to today.’ Estimates show that in the post-Civil Rights era, roughly half of native-born Chinese and Japanese Americans are married to Whites (Jacobs and Labov 1995; Kitano, Yeung, Chai, and Hatanaka 1984). There is little difference in outmarriage rates among third- generation Japanese Americans and second-generation Chinese Americans who belong to the same age cohort group. Generation does make a difference but

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 9

only between those who are foreign-born or, more specifically, recent immi- grants, and the native-born8

It appears, though, that although the rate of Asian-White marriages is quite substantial, the proportion of interethnic marriages has grown since the 1960s (Shinagawa 1994; Shinagawa and Pang 1988; Wong 1989; Kitano, Yeung, Chai, and Hatanaka 1984). This has led some to suggest that we are beginning to see the effect of ’60s-spawned Asian American consciousness raising on America’s college campuses as well as the effect of the sheer rise in numbers of the Asian population in the United States (Shinagawa 1994, p. 197; Espiritu 1992, p. 168).

Trends in sex-specific interracial marriage rates for Japanese and Chinese Americans show that although the rare AsiadWhite unions that occurred prior to World War I1 involved mostly Asian males and White females, for the post-Civil Rights generation, more United States-born Chinese and Japanese American fe- males have crossed race lines in marriage than their male counterparts. Although most studies conclude that there is such a sex disparity, the gap is nowhere as large as the disparity among African Americans, whereby Black males outmarry, according to some estimates, at more than 2.5 times the rate of Black females (Jacobs and Labov 1995). Most estimates show that the interracial marriage ratio of females to males among Chinese and Japanese Americans ranges from at the most 1.5 to 1, to a small difference favoring females among the native-born.’

A most interesting phenomenon that is increasingly noted by researchers is the fact that unlike other racial minorities in the United States, the expected pos- itive relationship between increasing income and education on the one hand and the likelihood of outmarriage to the dominant group on the othel; appears to be true only to a certain extent for Chinese and Japanese Americans. A number of studies do show that those who marry interracially in these two groups, as in the case of other racial minorities, tend to be more educated than the inmarried and are more likely to have manageriallprofessional occupations (Shinagawa and Pang 1988; Sung 1990). But recent studies comparing inmarried and outmarried Japanese and Chinese American males show that the average incomes of those who inmarry are higher than their outmarried counterparts (Jacobs and Labov 1995; Hwang, Saenz, and Aguirre 1994). This runs counter to the profile pre- sented by other racial minorities: African American, Mexican American, and Native American men who outmarry have significantly higher incomes than their inmarried counterparts (Jacobs and Labov 1995).

Furthermore, there is some recent evidence that Chinese and Japanese American men and women who marry Whites may be engaged in trading off so- cioeconomic and educational status for racial status: the White wives of Chinese and Japanese men have lower educational levels and lower labor force participa- tion rates than do the wives of inmarried men (Jacobs and Labov 1995), are more likely to have been married before (Hwang, Saez, and Aguirre 1994), and have

10 SUECHOW

lower individual incomes than the wives of inmarried men (Jacobs and Labov 1995). Jacobs and Labov (1995) have also found that outmarried Japanese and Chinese American men have lower overall household incomes than their inmar- ried counterparts and that White men married to Chinese and Japanese American women are able to marry women with “higher education than would be ex- pected” based on the White men’s own educational resources (Jacobs and Labov 1995, p. 24).

In sum, when looking at aggregate trends in interracial marriage for Chinese and Japanese Americans, we see that there has been a tremendous in- crease in marriages with White Americans in the post-Civil Rights era. Generational differences still matter but only between immigrants and the native- born. Additionally, available evidence shows that Chinese and Japanese men and women may engage in “tradeoffs” when they are involved in marriages to White Americans.

Marital Preferences

Diferences between Men and Women

Overall, of the 152 respondents who answered the question of whether or not they have racial preferences for spouses, the largest group (42.8%) indicated a preference for either someone from the same ethnic group or for Asians in gen- eral. The smallest group consisted of those who prefer Whites, while the “no preference” group was in between in size (see Table 1). Those who were married or cohabiting generally indicated either that their preference was for the race of their spouse or that they did not have a racial preference.

Among the 73 male and 81 female respondents, a larger percentage of the women indicated a preference for White spouses compared to the men (see

Table 1 Number and Percentage in Each Spousal Preference Group by Sex:

Racial Preferences of U.S.-Born Chinese and Japanese Women and Men

Preferred Race of Spouse Prefer Whites Prefer Asians No Preference Refbse to Answer

Women 24 (29.6%) 32 (39.5%) 25 (30.8%) 0 Men 9 (12.0%) 34 (46.5%) 28 (38.3%) 2 Total 33 (21.4%) 66 (42.8%) 53 (33.7%) 2

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 11

Table 1). Conversely, a higher percentage of men indicated either no preference or a preference for Asian American spouses.“

Significantly, there was no difference between men and women in reported cultural constraints and their influence on attitudes toward interracial relation- ships. However, more second-generation Chinese and Japanese men and women reported parental wishes for them to inmarry with someone from their own eth- nic group, while third-generation respondents reported little familial pressure to inmarry. Although more than half of the second generation respondents reported some parental pressure for them to marry someone from their own ethnic group, only four respondents indicated that they felt compelled to abide by their par- ents’ wishes.

A significant finding is that proportionately faver Japanese and Chinese American men reported having had dating experiences with White women com- pared to the women. Many of the men reported having been turned down by White women and having suspected that it had something to do with their race. Furthermore, a majority of the Japanese and Chinese women reported that they felt that White men were attracted to them, whereas their male peers reported the opposite-that generally they did not feel that White women found them attractive:

Chinese American man: Asian women are seen as exotic and also the media often shows Asian women White men pairs so it’s more acceptable and even seen as chic but Asian men? What do we have going for us? We’re geeks, butlers, meek, pushovers. And we’re short and thin . . . We’re hardly your John Wayne or Tom Cruise American ideal . . . What do we have that White women will want except for maybe our money? (laughs).

From these personal narratives, we do not see much evidence of heightened familial or cultural constraints vis a vis Chinese and Japanese American men to inmarry compared to their female peers. Instead, it is the contrasting experi- ence-actual and anticipated rejections by the dominant g r o u p t h a t appears to

Table 2 Number and Percentage US.-Born Japanese and Chinese Americans

Indicating Experience Dating Whites by Sex

Experience Dating Whites Some Experience No Experience Total

Women 72 (88.88%) 9(11.11%) 81 (100%) Men 35 (47.94%) 38 (52.05%) 73 (1 00%)

12 SUECHOW

underlie the greater propensity of these Asian American men to indicate either no preference or a preference for Asian mates.

As for the relationship between degree of acculturation and partner prefer- ences (using conventional markers such as language and customs), there was no relationship between the two, even though more second-generation respondents reported being able to speak Chinese or Japanese to varying degrees compared to third- and later-generation respondents. Nor was there any relationship be- tween traditional practices and spousal preference since the great majority of interviewees, regardless of generation, reported that, besides enjoying ethnic foods on a regular basis, observance of traditional practices was limited to cel- ebrating major ethnic holidays such as Lunar New Year.

Eurocentric “Looks Aesthetic”

Despite the range of marital preferences and a higher proportion of women indicating White spousal preferences, standards for desired physical characteris- tics were uniformly Eurocentric. When asked to describe the physical character- istics of their ideal mates, the great majority of both the women and men either directly described features that were distinctively European or indirectly indi- cated their preference for European features by stating that commonly found Asian features did not appeal to them. This was true regardless of whether the re- spondents indicated no preference or a preference for Whites or Asians. Typical responses suggesting that a European aesthetic was the predominant ideal were the following:

Japanese American woman: I like taller men and men who aren’t thin. You know, more buff. I also don’t like tight eyes and round flat faces.

Japanese American man: Cucumber legs I don’t think are attractive on women and you see that sometimes on Japanese American women. Also, I think at least 5’3” and above would be nice although I’m only five-five myself (laughs). I find fuller figures more attractive. In fact, some- times I look at Asian women, and I think to myself they’re all alike. There’s more variety with White women. You have your brunette, your blonde, your redhead . . .

On the whole, the valued physical characteristics for mates described by both men and women were those more commonly found among Euro- Americans, such as tallness, round eyes, “buffness” for men, and “more ample breasts” for women. However, it was clear that the nearly universal agreement over standards of attractiveness and the clear presence of a Eurocentric “looks aesthetics” did not translate into an overwhelming preference for Euro-American mates. In fact, those who prefer White spouses constituted the smallest group among the respondents (see Table 1). The next section explores the reasons given for having White, Asian, or no racial preferences.

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 13

Those Who Prefer Whites: Raciatizing Asians as 440the~s”

Although a European aesthetic or standard for personal appearance ap- peared to be widespread among the women and men regardless of racial prefer- ences in coupling, what most dzferentiated the group that preferred Whites and the Asian preferred group was the degree of identiJication with European Americans and European American culture. Those who indicated a preference for White mates and a substantial proportion of the men in the no preference group engaged in narratives indicating high valuation of certain salient European American cultural images and beliefs, and tended to regard other Asians and non-Whites as undifferentiated “others.” When describing themselves and their own interests and activities, both the men and women frequently invoked com- mon European American cultural images and often took pains to differentiate themselves and their beliefs from stereotypes of Asians:

Chinese American man: I’m really into sports . , . Not just casually like some Asians. An ex- ample is when I ski, I really ski hard. I go to Tahoe a lot. You see Asians there but they’re just kind of winding down the bunny slopes. Oh and I work out . . .

Japanese American woman: I never felt very Asian. Like I remember in school, the other Japanese American girls were you know, quiet and shy, good students. I was a cheerleader, student body rep. I was a decent student but I had a life if you know what I mean . . .

Perhaps most relevant for understanding preferences for Whites is the fact that found almost exclusivelv among those who prefer Whites were narratives that racialize opposite sex gender characteristics. For example, when asked why they prefer White women, many of the men answered by describing Asian and White women differently:

Why do I like White women more? They’re more natural, more fun, vivacious, vibrant. More confident too. I like the granola girl types and you don’t find very many Asian girls like that.

White women are more in touch with their bodies, more outspoken, more confident, more physical. Asian women are too submissive and shy. I don’t want somebody who’s a doormat. That doesn’t make me feel alive. I want someone who’s exciting and that’s usually White women. It’s not a race thing. More a personality preference. I like the way White women look more but I think it goes deeper than looks. It’s character and personality. I’m more in tune with White women.

The women who prefer White men similarly explained why they have this preference by describing Asian and White men as virtual opposites:

Asian men are arrogant but only in private. They’re chauvinists-much more than White men are.

I had this Asian boyfriend once, and boy was he insecure and self-centered too. He was also not very good at expressing his feelings, and he was not very supportive at all-very selfish. From my experience, White guys are more giving and much more confident.

14 SUECHOW

White men are more communicative, more supportive, more confident. And they do more housework.

In addition to categorizing Asian men or women negatively while positively categorizing Whites of the opposite sex, many of those who prefer Whites tended to believe that there was more individual variation among Whites and viewed Asians in a much more rigidly stereotypic way:

Chinese American man: I find Asian women fall into one of two types. They’re either very, very passive or they’re your Connie Chung go-getter, charged up, dragon lady type. Neither one appeals to me. 1 find more White women who are in-between-not super charged or super repressed.

Relationship images, too, were rucialized-sometimes to such an extent that AsiadAsian couples were viewed as “strange” and “not real”:

Chinese American woman: I’ll tell you why I can’t see myself with an Asian husband. It would be strange, not real . . . O K what I mean is when my White friends see little Asian kids or two little Asians holding hands or being affectionate, they’ll say, “Look at them, they’re so cute!” You understand what I mean? I don’t want to be cute, like a pet or something. I want to be taken seriously.

Significantly, most of those who prefer Whites felt compelled to justify their choices by asserting that their preference for White partners was simply a matter of “individual choice,” “personal preference,” or “taste,” much like one might have a preference for anything else:

Chinese American woman: Don’t get me wrong. It’s [preference for White men] just individ- ual preference. Some people like macho guys or feminine women; some like dark hair, some like light. I just happen to find White men more appealing, especially the blonde types.

We see close identification with the dominant group among those who in- dicate a clear preference for White partners. There appears to be successful dis- tancing from Asians in that fellow Asians are seen as negatively stereotyped “others,” while self and dominant group members are seen as unique individuals possessing desired characteristics. To the extent that members of outgroups are often viewed by dominant groups as “undifferentiated representatives of their groups” while fellow dominant group members are viewed as complex individu- als (Howard 1994, p. 212), it appears that the Japanese and Chinese Americans who closely identify with Whites have internalized this critical dominant group mindset toward fellow Asians. l 1

Given such deep-seated identification with the dominant group, it is not sur- prising that the status value assigned to Whites and to intimate relationships with Whites is greater than that assigned to those who rank lower on the macrostatus dimension of race despite the fact that the subjects themselves belong to the lower ranked group. The cultural nature of such racialized perspectives must be stressed, as these race-based status dimensions are ultimately cultural beliefs

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 15

about the significance and worth of human attributes (Lawler, Ridgeway, and Markovsky 1993, p. 278). The cultural and psychological capital derived from intimate relationships with Whites which emerged clearly from these narratives resides in the higher valuation of idealized attributes associated with Whites in general and especially with White intimate others. Such White relationship cap- ital is especially salient for these Asians who prefer Whites not only because of the idealization of Euro-American attributes but also because of the simultane- ous devaluation of personal characteristics associated with opposite sex Asians.

Preferring Asians: Corn fort Level, Cultural Preservation Discourse, and Acquiring “Better-Quality People”

For those who indicated a preference for Asians as intimate partners, the most commonly cited reason was the greater “comfort level” or enhanced rap- port with fellow Asians:

Japanese American man: For me it’s the comfort level from sharing a common background. You tend to think alike and not have to try hard to overcome all kinds of barriers such as prejudice.

Chinese American woman: Hey, relationships are hard enough even when you’re the same race. If you’re not, it just makes it that much harder. The instinctual connection you have with someone of the same race, the unspoken understanding, just isn’t there.

Often explanations of why Asian partners are preferred include references to more “equality” as a part of the “comfort” level experienced. A Chinese American man who was previously involved in a fifteen-year relationship with a White woman explained it this way:

It’s hard to put your finger on it but in my previous relationship, (a White woman) was kind of, well, she was very insecure but with me, oddly, she was quite arrogant, as if I should be grateful that she’s with me . . . We never talked about it. It’s one of those things that I just began to realize more and more, especially now as I’m in a long term rela- tionship with (a Japanese American woman) and it’s very different. It’s more comfortable, it feels right . . . Therek more ofafeeling ofequaliv to it.

A number of respondents talked about how Whites, no matter how empa- thetic, can never understand what it feels like to be a racial minority and that the absence of this common ground was an important factor in their decision to ei- ther marry or prefer an Asian American spouse. One Chinese American woman who was married to a Japanese American man put it this way:

Before I married , my boyfriend was a Caucasian, and he was very nice. He was very liberal and tried very hard to do the right thing but there are just some things that are very important to me to have in a relationship that he can’t offer . . . we were in a restaurant once, and the waitresses kept on ignoring us. I know that look and that kind of behavior for what it was but he thought they were just tired . . , It’s that automatic connection that you have with another minority that I’m talking about.

I6 SUECHOW

All these elements-racial empathy and understanding, enhanced rapport, a feel- ing of equality--contribute to the “comfort level” that a great majority of re- spondents who prefer Asian American spouses cited as the most important reason for their preference.

The second most commonly cited reason for marrying someone who was Asian or from the same ethnic group was “common culture.”’2 However, when queried about what was meant by sharing a common culture, most respondents mentioned primarily convenient “symbolic” practices (Waters 1990; Gans 1979) such as cooking and eating ethnic foods, celebrating ethnic holidays, passing on family stories, and visiting with relatives:

R: It’s important to me to carry on my culture and to pass it on to my children. With my hus- band who is also Chinese, it’s easier to do that.

I: What have you or your husband done so far to transmit your culture to your children?

R: Well, we tell them stones about their grandparents. We celebrate Chinese New Year, give them red envelopes . . . And of course we eat Chinese food whenever I have the time which isn’t often (laughs). Oh and we try to have them interact with both sets of grandparents as much as we can.

Despite the symbolic nature of such descriptions of a common culture, commitment to the ideal of preserving Asian culture was clearly present. When queried about the development of this cultural commitment, many attributed the development of such a commitment to their college days. These respondents spoke of not thinking that cultural preservation was important until they became active in Asian American organizations in college, took Asian American studies courses, or had Asian American friends. Furthermore, a number described how commitment to cultural preservation was related to a growing sense of racial in- equality and Euro-American cultural dominance:

I never questioned White supremacy and White culture until I went to UCLA. Then when I was in college and hung around Asians and took Asian American courses, it was like, wow my whole frame of mind changed. I realized that the marginal feeling I’d always felt was because of racism. I think that was the start of feeling that for me to respect myself, I had to . . . re- culture myself and reeducate myself about my own heritage. There’s no other way. I definitely didn’t want to be a banana. . .

The third category of reasons given by a minority of those who prefer Asian partners centered around the belief that they could get “better-quality’’ people as mates if they limited themselves to Asians. This pragmatic consideration was re- flected in the following statement by a third-generation Japanese American man (not yet married) who spoke of how his older brothers’ marriages to White women served as a negative example:

I have three older brothers, and they all married White women. Let me see, one married a woman who’s a closet alcoholic, and the other married an ex-barmaid, and the other married someone who’s from a good family but she’s a do-nothing and mentally not there . . .

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 17

Somehow, I just feel that if they were White . . . my brothers would have married better qual- ity women. They’re all very educated, went to good colleges, and make good money. I don’t see their White friends with women like that. As for me, I don’t want that kind of women, White or purple . . . My girlfriend is a sansei like me, and she’s in med school. I’m very proud of her. I don’t need a White woman to prop up my ego.

In a similar vein, a Chinese American man talked about how his preference for Asian women stemmed from his observations of the “White losers” who “hang around Asians” and his feeling that he can enhance his chances of finding someone “decent” if he focused on Asians:

The White losers who hang around Asians. They’re either ugly or they’re poor. Which do you want? Take your choice (laughs). I can have a good-looking blonde any time but if you look further you’ll see that she’s uneducated, poor and a gold-digger (laughs). If she’s not, if she’s a professional or something like that, she’s bound to be ugly and desperate. Asian men have very little choice but still, I’m on a more equal footing with another Asian so the odds of finding someone who’s decent should go up.

For the Asian Americans who prefer Asian spouses, we see that homoga- mous similarities arising from race, particularly racial inequalities, were the pri- mary basis for their preference. Whether expressed as “comfort level,” feelings of equality, implicit racial bonding, being able to acquire “higher quality” mates, or a conscious decision to preserve Asian culture, racial inequality constitutes the implicit or explicit context for their preference. Thus, for the respondents ethnic-racial relationship capital in intimate relationships appears to reside in the high valuation of a range of perceived attributes and interpersonal dynamics that arise from being with a similarly categorized racial “other.”

The “No Preference’, Group: Being “Realistic,” Reacting to Bad Experiences, and Discourse of Color Blindness

Of the fifty-three women and men who indicated “no preference” for the race of their partners, explanations for why they had no racial preferences generally fell into one of three categories. The first group of answers was given primarily by men and was an attitude that was characterized by the respondents themselves as being “realistic” given the “limited” opportunities facing Asian American men:

Japanese American man: You have to be realistic. I may desire something but as to whether you’re going to get it, that’s another question altogether. As an Asian man in this counw, your choices are limited so you have to be open.

For some men who indicated no preference, both Asian American and White women were viewed as having their advantages and disadvantages:

With me, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. White women are more exciting, freer . . . but I feel more comfortable with Asian women even though they’re more inhibited and not as much fun (laughs).

18 SUECHOW

The second category of answers was given by those who expressed a strong belief in looking beyond race. According to these men and women, having a racial preference was “racist,” and colorblindness was the only morally correct principle to have when choosing intimate partners. The emphasis for most was on the importance of individual characteristics in mate choice:

Chinese American man married to a White woman: I love my wife, and she happens to be White, that’s all. When I look at her I see her as a person, not as a White person. I’ve always looked past race to the person underneath. I think it’s the only way we’re going to get to the next stage in this country. We have to treat people as individuals, not as this White person or Black person or Asian person.

Despite or because of their avowed belief in being colorblind, many were acutely cognizant of how hard it was to put this belief into practice because, as in the words of one, “our society is so racially charged.” One Chinese American woman described a traumatic experience when dating a White man in college which illustrated to her how hard it was to practice her belief in not letting race influence her relationships with people:

This was back in the late ’60s so things may have gotten better but I remember how 1 was re- ally excited about a date with this cute White guy. We were in his room, and he was trying to kiss me, and then I couldn’t believe what he said. He said something like, “I’m so starved for sex because there’s this White girl in my class that I go out with but I can’t bring myself to sleep with her because she’s like a blonde goddess.” I thought, what does he think I am, some cheap Asian whore? It took me a long time to get over that one . . . before I dated a White guy again. I try not to let a person k race injuence me but sometimes it k really hard because we live in a society where people are not treuted as equals because of the color of their skin.

The respondents expressing no racial preference represent the most diverse group. The reasons given for the absence of racial preferences range from a feel- ing of limited opportunities to belief in colorblindness and the importance of in- dividual characteristics. For the latter group it is uncertain whether avowed belief represents more than “politically correct” rhetoric or rationalization as there is no way for us to determine whether actual desires and behavior are consistent with verbalized beliefs. Regardless, racial inequality affects the marital prefer- ences of these respondents as well as those who have explicit racial preferences.

Changing Preferences: Racializing Bad Experiences

For some (fourteen respondents), preferences changed through time from Asian to White and vice versa. Six men and eight women indicated such prefer- ence changes from one race to the other. Among the men, the change from Asian to White and vice versa was evenly split, with three indicating a switch from an Asian preference to preferring Whites and three reporting a change in the other direction. Of the eight women, six reported making a transition from preferring

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 19

Asians to preferring Whites, while two reported making the opposite transition. When describing the change, a large number in this group (nine) tended to “racialize” their bad experiences. For example, a Japanese American man who was once married to a White woman and who is presently married to a Chinese American had this to say about his transition:

She (former wife who was White) jabbered all day and complained all the time but did very little work. She sat on her butt and got fat. I got sick of that. Now with my present wife, she’s quiet, gets a lot of work done and doesn’t demand so much attention. I don’t know. Maybe that’s the difference between White and Asian women.

Conversely, but in a similar vein, a Chinese American man whose first wife was Chinese American and who is currently married to a White woman expressed similar racialized assessments of his experience:

My first wife was quite materialistic. She was bossy and not very interested in intimacy and sex. I suspect that this is the case with many Asian women. I needed more intimacy, someone who was more feminine, less harsh. , who is of Irish American extraction, is very different. She appreciates me. She makes me feel good about myself. I can’t imagine trying to relate to another Asian woman again . . . at least not now. She’ll have to be a real exception. Similarly, five of the eight women who underwent preference changes made

sense of their switch in racialized terms by comparing Asian men to White men in contrasting terms:

My former husband, , was a typical Asian man of his age. He bossed me around, stomped all over the house like a tiger. Snapped at me and the kids but outside, he was a mouse. I was miserable. If I hadn’t gotten out of that marriage I would have died.

, my boyfriend (he is White), is so different. He brings me my favorite tea after work, he listens to me, supports me. I am where I am because of him.

I’d never, I tell you, go with a Chinese man again. They don’t respect you. They really feel bad about themselves so they take out their anger on you. It’s like they have to put you down to feel good about themselves. Yuck! I get this tight feeling in my stomach when I even think about Asian men.

Further explanations for why preferences changed revolved around the same images and recurrent themes constituting White or Asian relationship cap- ital. Relationships with Asian spouses were described as being more “comfort- able” with shared bonds stemming from racial and cultural similarity, while White spouses were viewed as being more exciting, more glamorous, less sexu- ally inhibited, more fun, and for some more “aesthetically pleasing.”

Such rationalizations of partner changes and relationship problems through racializing either negative or positive characteristics to justify current mate choices support those (Barth 1969) who stress the instrumental use of race and ethnicity. Such “circumstantial racializations” illustrate vividly how interchange- abZe racialized relationship capital is for some Asian Americans. Relationship

20 SUECHOW

failures-both inter- and intraracial-for this group are conveniently attributed to characteristics associated with race and individual responsibility seemingly deflected. Okamura’s (1 98 1) insistence that social structural location determines the degree of freedom people have to negotiate ethnic presentations provides an explanatory framework for understanding the latitude Asian Americans have to utilize racialized rationalizations of interpersonal relationship failures. The inter- mediate location of Asian Americans in America’s racial hierarchy (Lieberson 1980; Loewen 1988) may be seen as the structural basis giving rise to the seem- ing ease with which racialized relationship capital is interchanged. The greater acceptance of Asians as intimate partners by Whites in our current historical cli- mate (as manifested in high outmarriage rates) on the one hand, and yet the per- sistence of structural and social inequalities on the other, are the twin dynamics that appear to fuel the sort of racialized “whiplash” reaction to relationship fail- ures that we see among this group.

Awareness of Status Inequality vs. Discourses of Freedom of Choice

Awareness of status or racial inequality between Asians and Whites was pervasive in the personal narratives of the respondents. This was expressed either directly or indirectly and often in a defensive manner. Comments reflecting awareness of status inequalities in interracial relationships were frequently punctuated by caveats about respecting individuals’ freedom of choice and the possibility that some interracial couplings may indeed reflect genuine race- transcendent love.

I know this is terrible, it’s terrible to have these thoughts about interracial couples because peo- ple do fall in love even when they’re of different races but I often think nasty thoughts, like the Asian or Black person wants to be White or having a White lover makes them feel White, that somehow they’re running away from their heritage, their people. Or I’d think, “god the White person they’re with looks like a dog or the White person must be desperate.” Like I said, it’s really bad of me to think this way because it’s their freedom of choice, and you’ve got to re- spect that.

When asked about their thoughts upon seeing AsiadWhite couples in pub- lic, a majority responded eagerly and expressed definite opinions. Four recurrent themes emerged from these responses. One thematic response crosscut prefer- ence categories and was by far the most common answer given by both the women and men who responded to this question: Many mentioned that when they see Asian female/White male couples in public, they often suspect some kind of power imbalance and that the White man may have been attracted to the Asian woman because he was looking for someone “submissive” and “exotic”:

I: What are your thoughts when you see an Asian woman with a White man?

R: What do I think of? It catches my attention right away, and I kind of look to see, first of all, if she’s a lot better looking than he is . . . Often that’s the case. You see this foxy, beautiful

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 21

Asian woman with a White geek. Then I try to see if he dominates her. You know, if she’s sub- missive. I also have thoughts like he must have fantasies of Oriental women being exotic or mysterious or something like that.

Even Asian women who are involved in marriages or relationships with White men had similar comments, but all stated that their own relationships were far from this stereotype and that they did not know any couples that exemplified this image:

When I see Asian women with White men I automatically think that he wants somebody he can dominate and somebody with an exotic allure. I don’t know why. My own relationship with my husband certainly isn’t like that at all. In fact, it’s the other way around. Coming to think of it , my husband, did say shortly after we got to know each other better, that he thought I was the bossiest woman and the most aggressive woman that he’d ever known.

I: Do you know other couples that fit this image where the White male dominates his Asian fe- male partner?

R: Let me see . . . I know several couples like us, and, no, nobody fits this image (laughs). I guess it’s just a stereotype and probably far from the truth.

The three other recurrent themes were more commonly articulated by either one sex or by those belonging to a particular preference category. The majority of males, regardless of preference category, had negative responses to Asian f e m a l e m i t e male couples. Typical responses about Asian female/ White male couples that were exclusively articulated by males were the following:

When I see an Asian female with a White man and particularly if she’s pretty, it sort of hits me in the gut. I feel like we’ve lost something valuable. I feel personally rejected.

It ticks me off, and I know it’s wrong. It’s her choice, she’s free to choose. This is a free coun- try. And maybe there’s genuine love going on. But I can’t help thinking, what’s wrong with us. How come you’re not with one of us?

In contrast, only a small number of women (six) expressed negative senti- ments indicating a sense of loss and jealousy upon seeing White female/Asian male couples. In fact, a number of younger Asian women (under thirty-five) had just the opposite reaction to seeing Asian men with White women:

What I sometimes think when I see Asian men with White women is, “Good, I’m glad they’re accepted. It’s about time. That should make them feel better about themselves.”

My brother goes to this lily-white college in the Midwest, and he finally managed to get him- self a White girlfriend, and it’s just done wonders for his self-esteem so I know what it can do for Asian American men. There should be more couples like that to balance all the Asian female-White male pairs you see.

The final two recurrent themes found in responses to questions about Asian/ White couples were preference-group specific. A common response among those

22 SUECHOW

who prefer Whites was a sense of affirmation when they see an AsiadWhite cou- ple where the Asian was of the same sex:

Woman: When I see an Asian woman with a White man, my first reaction is, “Oh, that’s like us.” It makes me feel good to see that.

A second reaction mentioned by some in the White preference group was a “strange” or “odd” sense when seeing an Asian of the opposite sex with a White person and was typically articulated in the following ways:

Japanese American woman: OAen when I see an Asian guy with a White girl I get a strange feeling that something’s odd here. It’s like, I think, “Why would she be with him? What’s wrong with her? We don’t even want them” I don’t know. It’s just such an incongruous couple.

Chinese American woman: I always find that strange (White woman with Asian man). I mean why is she with him, I would think. You know (laughs) it almost makes me more interested in him. The fact that White women find him appealing intrigues me.

Chinese American man: I used to avoid Asian women like the plague. I found very few of them attractive. When I’d see one on campus walking toward me, I’d deliberately not look at her. When my White friends and my parents assume that I’d be interested in so and so just cause she’s Asian, that really pisses me off. But lately, I’ve seen so many good-looking, cool White guys interested in Asian girls, I’m beginning to wonder, “Am I missing something?” I find my- self thinking, “maybe I should check them out” (laughs).

From these narratives by those who prefer Whites, it is apparent that from their perspective the status of Asians is elevated by the very fact that Whites show interest. As the reference or “in-group” for these Asians who prefer Whites, Whites understandably determine the status hierarchy and set the tone for what is deemed desirable or not; thus merely being the target of White inter- est enhances the value of Asians as seen from this perspective.

These responses by those who prefer Whites were in marked contrast to re- sponses given by those who prefer Asians. For many in the latter category, there is awareness that Whites have higher status, but instead of accepting or internal- izing this White-determined status hierarchy, Asians involved in intimate rela- tions with Whites are seen as “sell-outs’’ and as people who reject their own kind in order to improve their own status:

Chinese American man: What I think about when I see these couples, and it doesn’t matter if it’s an Asian man or woman, is that they’re trying to assimilate, to better themselves, and they’re turning their backs on their people.

Chinese American man: They’re selling out. That’s all there is to it. What did my parents used to say about these people who love to hang around and sleep with White people? My mom used to say that they love to “eat Western farts,” that they’re just getting the crumbs, the left- over Whites.

Chinese American woman: I just think to myself, “why aren’t they with one of their own kind? Aren’t Chinese good enough for them? Don’t they have any pride in themselves?”

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 23

Japanese American woman: I can’t help thinking, and I know it’s probably not right since it’s none of my business. They should be free to choose who they want to marry but I’d often think these people must be very vain and must want desperately to be accepted by White society . , . to convince others and themselves that they’re White. You know, I get this feeling more with the Asian guys with White women than I do with the Asian women . . .

There are some major differences in the varieties of responses to Asian/ White couples, but it is significant that the great majority had strong reactions to such a pairing, and most signiJicantlq, all the responses implicitly recognized the status inferiority ofAsians compared to Whites. The nearly universal thought that White males dominate Asian women was not only a recognition of male domi- nance but of the possibility of enhanced dominance because of race. For those who prefer Whites, the implicit acceptance of Whites as the norm-setting refer- ence group for social desirability is a direct indication of the internalized recog- nition and acceptance of a European American-dominated status hierarchy. For the group that prefers Asians, implicit in the negative reaction against those who are “selling out” is both awareness of and opposition to an unequal status hier- archy that consigns Asians to an inferior status compared to Whites.

Lastly but equally as important is the discourse of respecting “freedom of choice” and the possibility of real individual attraction that many respondents felt compelled to voice. As reflected in the respondents’ narratives, this discourse introduces a clear point of tension that militates against the widespread feeling that intimate Asian-White relationships are somehow, as in the words of one, “strange because they make you wonder how and why they are together.”

Discussion and Concluding Remarks

Although this study offers a small window into just one particular dimen- sion of the subject of intimate interracial relations, the findings suggest some in- teresting dynamics as to how living in a public sphere dominated by European Americans and yet one that is more open to interracial unions than in the past has affected the attitudes of a group of second and later generation Chinese and Japanese Americans toward relationship preferences in the private sphere. Although one of the effects of racial inequality on mate choice was the nearly universal acceptance of Euro-American standards for personal attractiveness, the most significant effects of racial inequality were the different modalities of adap- tive reactions.

First, we see that there are those for whom having Euro-American spouses was associated with desired values, thus contributing to the creation of Euro- American relationship capital. Perceptions of the desirability of White mates were accompanied by close identification with the dominant group, an identifi- cation that includes attributing desired Euro-American cultural behavior to one- seif and negatively categorizing fellow Asians. Such “structure conforming”

24 SUECHOW

behavior is, in a sense, predictable given that race is a macrostatus along with class, sex, education, etc. (Lawler, Ridgeway, and Markovsky 1993), and like the latter can give rise to the inhsing of higher ranked individuals with valued at- tributes.

But despite these manifestations of the power of the dominant group and dominant culture to influence behavior that reproduces existing status hierar- chies, we see in another adaptive modality-those who prefer Asian American spouses-that social inequality can lead many to prefer same-race partners. We see that racial homogamv is a powerful force driving mate choice. For those who prefer Asians, the valuing of “comfort level,” feelings of equality, implicit racial empathy, and the preservation of a culture (however symbolic) has invested mar- riage to Asian Americans with racial-ethnic relationship capital, a form of rela- tionship capital that appears to be quite different in content from Euro-American relationship capital.

Though neither reflexively affirming nor actively resisting existing social structures, those in the “no preference” group were also affected by racially based status inequalities in their choice. Many (especially the men) stated that practical considerations, such as limited opportunities due to their social location as Asian males, were reasons for this “no preference” attitude. And for those who profess belief in colorblindness as the reason for having no racial preferences, many were cognizant of how difficult it was to live their beliefs in a society where people’s behavior constantly contradicts this tenet.

Finally, one most intriguing finding of this study was the relative ease with which some Asian Americans transitioned from one racial preference to the other through the life course. For this group both types of capital, Euro-American and Asian American relationship capital, carry resonance but at different points in their lives. This group illustrates how interchangeable racialized relationship capital is for some Asian Americans and thus supports those (e.g., Barth 1969) who stress the instrumental or socially constructed nature of race and ethnicity. However, it is possible that at this historical juncture, Asian Americans are situ- ated in a unique social location of racial intermediacy that gives rise to such “flip-flopping” of racial preferences. In this case, such changing racial prefer- ences among Asian Americans should be viewed as a form of “constrained so- cial construction” and thus support those who caution against a structureless view of the social construction of race and ethnicity (Okamura 1981).

What are the implications of this study for the relatively unexplored area of race and mate choice? This study suggests that one prime effect of racial in- equality for Asian Americans today is the generation of racialized relationship capital, with the two main forms being Euro-American and racial-ethnic capital. When race becomes a macrostatus because social inequalities have been struc- tured around race, racial differences can have contradictory effects on mate choice with some valuing relationships with dominant group members and others

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 25

valuing same-racehame-ethnicity spouses. Even those without racial preferences are affected by racial inequality in one way or the other. Moreover, beyond their own preferences, a telling sign of the effect of racial status inequality was what the Asian American respondents in this study had to say about their thoughts when they witnessed interracial couples in public. Despite the variety of re- sponses, whether they were thoughts of “selling out,” thoughts of why White women would want Asian men, feelings of affirmation regarding one’s own inter- racial relationship, or thoughts of White male dominance of Asian females, the implicit context was a disquieting sense brought about by viewing a union be- tween two people with visibly unequal statuses along a major dimension-race.

Finally, what are the implications of this study for understanding the assim- ilation of racial minorities in American society? For one, the results of this study suggest that we may have to reexamine a common logic underlying studies on in- terracial couplings-that marriage with the dominant group signals the end stage of assimilation and that high rates of interracial unions as in the Asian American case indicate “successful assimilation” (Tinker 1982). The assumption of suc- cessful assimilation is problematic if only because of actual and perceived in- equalities in a society that privileges Euro-Americans and Euro-American culture-a structural dynamic that destabilizes and will continue to create coun- tercurrents and conflicts. As we have seen, this structural context of inequality has resulted in widely varying and conflicting attitudes toward both majority- minority and minority-minority mating preferences. Future studies may find that such underlying racial status inequalities not only influence mating preferences but also intimate relationship dynamics and social relationships in general. Furthermore, further research is needed to determine how class, gender, genera- tion, and race interact to shape such private interpersonal behavior.

For now it may be more realistic to see the future of Asian American as- similation as a contested terrain instead of a process deemed “successhl” sim- ply because of substantial Asian-White marriage rates. At the very least, the complex and problematic dynamics of coping with the impact of racial status in- equalities in the private sphere that emerge from this study suggest the need for developing new conceptual frameworks of assimilation and raise the question of whether we can continue to take the successhl assimilation of America’s “model minority” for granted.

ENDNOTES

Direct all correspondence to Sue Chow, McClatchy Hall, Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail: [email protected]. Research and writing support were pro- vided by the Irvine Post-Doctoral Fellow program and the Center for the Comparative Study of Race and Ethnicity (CSRE) at Stanford University.

26 SUECHOW

‘To date there have not been any qualitative studies of interracial unions in the social science literature using systematic qualitative data analysis. A survey of the literature shows that typically studies may supplement aggregate data analysis with small scale surveys and qualitative information from secondary sources. See Kikumura and Kitano (1973) and Sung (1990).

’The movement for “ethnic” affirmation set into motion in the 1960s was an anti-racist, pan- ethnic movement among Asian Americans. See especially Espiritu (1992) for an excellent account of this movement among Asian Americans. “Race cognizance,” as used by Frankenberg underscores the central dynamic of racial or ethnic affirmation by people of color as a reaction to White racism. In this paper I have used “ethnic” and “ethnicity” interchangeably with “race” unless otherwise specified.

3Seventeen Korean Americans were also interviewed as part of the overall project. Inclusion of data on spousal preferences for Korean Americans does not change the figures in Tables 1 or 2 sig- nificantly nor does it lead to any conceptual changes. However, I decided to leave out Korean Americans, because I could not locate enough older (over 35) United States-born Koreans to make the sample comparable to my Japanese American and Chinese American samples, which covered in- dividuals over a much wider age range and hence provide a more complete understanding of life course changes

4That the majority of outmarried Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans are married to Whites is widely acknowledged as well as the fact that among the outmarried more females in both groups are married to Caucasians compared to their male counterparts. See Shinagawa and Pang (1988) and Lee and Yamanaka (1990). Although the majority of outmarried Japanese American and Chinese American males are also married to Whites, compared to their female counterparts propor- tionately more outmarried males are married to members of other Asian ethnic groups. See Shinagawa and Pang (1 988) and Lee and Yamanaka ( 1990) for figures.

’Estimates of pre-1960s Japanese American outmarriage rates show that before the late 1940s, outmarriage rates were quite low (in the 2% to 3% range). With the immigration of Japanese women (“war brides”) married to American servicemen after World War 11, rates began to increase slowly and steadily to the low twenties by the late 1950s. The big leap in outmarriage rates did not occur until the post-Civil Rights era of the late 1960s and early 1970s when native-born (mostly thirdgen- erution) JapaneseAniericuns began outmartying at a substantial rate (close to 500/). For figures, see Washington (1993, p. 200) and Kikumura and Kitano (1973).

6A number of my third and later generation Chinese American respondents had family stories to tell about pre-1960s marriages among relatives (all men) to White women who had worked for Chinese business such as restaurants and gift shops. Loewen’s (1988) ethnographic study of the Mississippi Chinese has information about Chinese men/Black women marriages before the 1950s. Most of these Black women who married Chinese American grocers in the Mississippi delta area were well-educated and middle-class, according to Loewen.

’Although the figures vary somewhat from study to study, there is complete consensus that Japanese American outmarriage rates to Caucasians have increased dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s compared to preceding decades (Panunzio 1942; Endo and Hirokawa 1983; Tinker 1982; Kikumura and Kitano 1973). Figures supplied by Kitano, Yeung, Chai, and Hatanaka (1984) show that outmarriage rates of second generation Chinese Americans compared with third generation Japanese Americans are as follows: second generation Chinese: males-55.1% outmarried, fe- males-55.6% outmarried; third generation Japanese: males-50% outmarried, females-5 1% out- married (based on Los Angeles County marriage license applications, 1979).

‘Many studies do not control for the “war bride” phenomenon (see note 3 ) when looking at out- marriage rates. It is especially important to take this factor into consideration when looking at Japanese and Korean American female outmarriages because this factor alone can inflate female out- marriage rates significantly for these two groups. For instance, Lee and Yamanaka’s (1990) figures

ASIAN AMERlCANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 27

show that for 1979, foreign-born Japanese females have higher outmarriage rates than United States-born females because of the Japanese “war bride” phenomenon. See Jacobs and Labov (1995) for figures showing the substantiaf difference in outmarriage rates between the foreign and United States-born for both Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans after controlling for “war brides.”

’This is an important point because although there is consensus that Japanese American and Chinese American females outmarry to Whites at a higher rate than males, big differences between the sexes are obtained only when nativity is not controlled for (hence the “war bride” effect). Once this factor is taken into consideration, differences between Japanese American males and females are much smaller. See Jacobs and Labov’s (1995) figures based on the 1990 Census.

’’An interesting generational difference was found among those who prefer Asian American spouses. Among this group slightly under half of second-generation respondents indicated that their first preference was for a same ethnicity spouse and that their second preference was for someone from another Asian ethnic group (most frequently mentioned were other East Asians, Filipinos and Vietnamese). Many stressed that parental wishes were not a salient factor in their preferences. The other half of second-generation interviewees who indicated a preference for Asian American spouses had no preference for one Asian ethnicity over another. Similarly, almost all of the third-generation respondents who prefer Asian American mates reported that they had no specific ethnicity prefer- ences. [In this paper, preference for Asian American spouses include both those who prefer same eth- nicity spouses and those whose preference is for an Asian spouse from any ethnicity.]

It should be noted that since status dimensions are cultural, even if they often arise from re- source advantages (Lawler, Ridgeway, and Markovsky 1993, p. 278), internalization of the dominant group’s racial status hierarchy does not necessarily mean simple opportunistic striving to acquire a valued resource. Narratives by those who prefer Whites suggest that the desire for White partners could well be part of a world view in which human attributes that are regarded as significant and worthwhile (Lawler, Ridgeway, and Markovsky 1993, p. 278) are constituted by idealized images of both European Americans and contemporary European American culture.

“Respondents’ descriptions of ethnic practices were sometimes ethniciv-speciJic, such as trying to learn ethnic languages, celebrating “Chinese” New Year and “Girls’” or “Boys”’ Day (Japanese traditions), but they also spoke of socializing with Asian friends of different ethnicities and enjoying other Asian ethnic foods and celebrations. Especially interesting are the accounts of in- terethnic couples’ attempts to integrate ethnicity-specific customs and foods on select occasions.

I 1

REFERENCES

Aguirre, Benign0 E., Rogelio Saenz, and Sean-Shong Hwang. 1995. “Remarriage and Intermarriage of Asians in the United States of America.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 26:207- 15.

Barth, Frederick, ed. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Blumer, Herbert. 1958. “Race Position as a Sense of Group Position.” The Pat@ Sociological

Burgess, E. W., and P. Wallin. 1943. “Homogamy in Social Characteristics.” American Journal of

Burma, John H. 1963. “Interethnic Marriage in Los Angeles, 1948-1959.” Social Forces

Carter, Hugh, and Paul C. Glick. 1976. Marriage and Divorce: A Social and Economic Study.

Review 1(1):373-77.

Sociology 49(2): 109-24.

42:15&65.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

28 SUECHOW

Cose, Ellis. 1993. The Rage of a Privileged Class. New York: Harper Collins. Davis, Kingsley. 1941. “Intermarriage in Caste Society.” American Anthropologist 43:376-95. Endo, Russell, and Dale Hirokawa. 1983. “Japanese American Intermarriage.” Free Inquiry in

Creative Sociology 1 1 : 159-66. Espiritu, Yen Le. 1992. Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Feagin, Joe R. (Melvin P. Sikes). 1994. Living with Racism: The Black Middle Class Experience.

New York: Beacon Press. . 1992. “The Continuing Significance of Racism: Discrimination against Black Students in

White Colleges.” Journal of Black Studies 22546-78. . 1991. “The Continuing Significance of Race: Anti-Black Discrimination in Public Places.”

American Sociological Review 56: 101-1 16. Fong, Timothy €? 1998. The Contemporary Asian American Experience: Beyond the Model Minority.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gans, Herbert J. 1979. “Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America.”

Ethnic and Racial Studies 2:l-20. Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Straws. 1967. The Discovery ofGmunded Theory: Strategies f o r

Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Press. Heer, David M. 1974. “The Prevalence of Black-White Marriage in the U.S., 1960 and 1970.”

Journal of Marriage and the Family 36:246-58. Howard, Judith A. 1994. “A Social Cognitive Conception of Social Structure.” Social Psychology

Quarterly 57:2 1 &27 Hwang, Sean-Shong, Rogelio Saenz, and Benign0 Aguirre. 1994. “Structural and Individual

Determinants of Outmarriage among Chinese and Filipino-and Japanese Americans in California.” Sociological Inquiry 6 4 : 3 9 6 4 14.

Jacobs, Jerry A,, and Teresa Labov. 1995. “Sex Differences in Intermarriage: Asian Exceptionalism Reconsidered.” Presented at the American Sociological Association Meeting, Washington, August 21, 1995.

Jiobu, Robert M. 1988. Ethnicity and Assimilation: Blacks. Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans. Mexicans. Viemarnese and Whites Albany. New York: State University of New York Press.

Kaw, E. 1993. “Medicalization of Racial Features: Asian American Women and Cosmetic Surgery.” Medical Anthropology Quarterb 7:7&89.

Keith, Verna M., and Cedric Herring. 1991. “Skin Tone and Stratification in the Black Community.” American Journal of Sociology 97:76&78.

Kikumura, Akemi, and Harry H. L. Kitano. 1973. “Interracial Marriage: A Picture of the Japanese Americans.’’ Journal of Social Issues 2957-8 1.

Kitano, Harry H. L., Wai-Tsang Yeung, Lynn Chai, and Herbert Hatanaka. 1984. “Asian American Interracial Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and Family 46( 1): 179-90.

Lawler, Edward 1.. Cecilia Ridgeway, and Barry Markovsky. 1993. “Structural Social Psychology and the Micro Macro Problem.” Sociological Theory 11:268-90.

Lee, Sharon M., and Keiko Yamanaka. 1990. “Patterns of Asian American Intermarriage and Marital Assimilation:’ Journal of Comparative Family Studies 21 :287-305.

Lieberson, Stanley. 1980. A Piece of the Pie. Berkeley: University of California Press. Loewen, James. 1988. The Mississippi Chinese: Between Black and White. Prospect Heights, Illinois:

McCracken, Grant. 1988. The Long Interview. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Merton, Robert M. 1941. “lntermarriage and the Social Structure: Fact and Theory.” Psychiahy

Waveland Press.

41361-74.

ASIAN AMERICANS AND SPOUSAL PREFERENCES 29

Murguia, Edward. 1982. Chicano Intermarriage: A Theoretical and Empirical Study. San Antonio,

Nagel, Joane. 1995. “American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Politics and the Resurgence of Identity.”

Okamura, Jonathan Y. 1981. “Situational Ethnicity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 4:452-65. Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial Formation in the United States. New York:

Routledge Ong, Paul, and Evelyn Blumenberg. 1994. “Scientists and Engineers.” Pp. 169-70 in The State of

Asian Pacific America, edited by Paul Ong. LEAP Asian Pacific America: Economic Diversity, Issues and Policies, UCLA Asian American Studies Center.

Panunzio, Constantine. 1942. “Intermarriage in Los Angeles, 1924-33.” American Journal of Sociology 47:690-701.

St. Jean, Yanick, and Joe R. Feagin. 1998. Double Burden: Black Women and Everyday Racism. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Shinagawa, Larry H. 1994. Intermarriage and Inequality: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of the Marriage Patterns ofAsian Americans. Unpublished dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California at Berkeley.

Shinagawa, Larry H., and Gin Yong Pang. 1988. “Intraethnic, Interethnic and Interracial Marriages among Asian Americans in California, 1980.” Berkeley Journal of Sociology 33:95-114.

Spickard Paul R. 1989. Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in 20th-Century America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Strauss, Anselm L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sung, Betty L. 1990. “Chinese American Intermarriage.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies

Tinker, John N. 1982. “Intermarriage and Assimilation in a Plural Society: Japanese Americans in the U.S.” In Intermarriage in the US., edited by Gary A. Crester and Joseph L. Loen. New York: Haworth Press.

Tucker, M. Belinda, and Claudia Mitchell-Kernan. 1990. “New Trends in Black American Interracial Marriage: The Social Structural Context.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:209-218.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 1988. The Economic Status of Americans of Asian Descent: An Exploratory Investigation. Washington D.C.: Clearinghouse Publications, no. 95.

Washington, Joseph R. 1993. Marriage in Black and White. New York: University Press of America. Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley, California:

University of California Press. Weiss, Melford S. 1971. “Chinese-Caucasian Interracial Dating.” Pp. 3 7 4 2 in Roots: An Asian

American Reader, edited by Amy Tachiki, Eddie Wong, and Franklin Odo. Los Angeles, California: UCLA Asian American Studies Center.

Wilson, Thomas C. 1996. “Cohort and Prejudice: Whites’ Attitudes toward Blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Asians.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60:253-74.

Winch, Robert F. 1958. Mate-Selection: A Study oJ Complementary Needs. New York: Harper and Row.

Wong, Morrison. 1989. “A Look at Intermarriage among the Chinese in the U.S. in 1980.” Sociological Perspectives 32:87-107.

Yoon, In-Jin. 1995. “Attitudes, Social Distance and Perceptions of Influence and Discrimination Among Minorities.” International Journal of Group Tensions 25:35-56.

Zinsmeister, Karl. 1988. “Asians and Blacks: Bittersweet Success.” Current Feb. 1988:9-15.

Texas: Trinity University Press.

American Sociological Review 60:947-65.

21~337-52.