• Ingen resultater fundet

Achieving SofB through Performances & Identifications

3.2 Socially Constructing SofB through Social Relatedness

3.2.3 Achieving SofB through Performances & Identifications

43

of 1.5GUY’s immigration cohort, life stage, and ULS influence SofB, including in partial or hybrid manners.

44 3.2.3.1.1 Coming Out

“Coming out” is conceptualized as a performance of one’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) identity; this performance is thus an identification with a particular sexual orientation and group. LGBT scholars have conceptualized of coming out as a process where individuals explore and disclose sexual orientation (Hill, 2009); intricately explore and develop their identities (Rosario, Hunter, Maguen, Gwadz, & Smith, 2001); and a self-discover, shed a false heterosexual identity, and correctly identify with one’s true homosexual “essence” (Rust, 1993, p. 53). Coming out is argued to be more complicated than realizing one’s sexual orientation, acknowledging this fact to oneself, and divulging this information to others (e.g. Coleman, 1982; McLean, 2007). Early models conceived of coming out as a single event (e.g. Dank, 1971; Hooker, 1967), but were followed by a linear and multi-step process (e.g. Cass, 1979; Coleman, 1982). More recently, scholars have conceived coming out to be a dynamic, fluid, non-linear, multi-dimensional process of constant identity negotiation (e.g.

McLean, 2007; Morris, 1997; Mosher, 2001). As an ongoing performance of identity management, coming out requires constant assessment of risks based on situation, relation, location, and context (e.g.

Rasmussen, 2004). In turn, coming out requires decisions about disclosure each time an individual encounters new people, settings, and situations. Coming out scholarship provides conceptual

inspiration for the exploration of if and how 1.5GUY divulge their ULS—an otherwise invisible status just like LGBT orientation—in relation to the performance and management of SofB in everyday social life.

Scholars have argued that coming out is a difficult process (Solomon, McAbee, Åsberg, & McGee, 2015) and one with advantages and disadvantages (McCann, 2010). Some scholars have claimed that coming out is important for positive identity development; crucial for living one’s life fully, openly, and honestly; and that coming out can positively influence well-being, reduce stress, and improve relationships (e.g. Berzon, 2001; Coleman, 1982; Soloman et al., 2015; Vargo, 1998). Conversely, some scholars have argued that being “closeted,”17 or not divulging LGBT orientation, can negatively influence identity development, sacrifice integrity, and damage one’s sense of self (e.g. Mosher, 2001;

Vargo, 1998). At the same time, individuals may fear loss of relationships during processes of disclosure (e.g. Grov, Bimbi, Nanín, & Parsons, 2006). Further, the stigmas related to LGBT status

17 While some researchers (e.g. Phelan 1993; Seidman 2004) have argued against the “closeted metaphor” for non-disclosure, as they argue this presents identity based on problematic binaries and essentialisms, it is still widely used.

45

have been observed to cause depression and suicidal tendencies (e.g. Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, &

Krowinski, 2003). Due to the complexity of this ongoing, intersubjective process in which individuals go through various stages of self-discovery, self-doubt, and internal struggles, scholarship on coming out processes is ripe with emotions such as feelings of doubt, confusion, bewilderment, difference, fear, shame, stigmatization (e.g. Carrion & Lock, 1997; Connell, 2012; McLean, 2007; Mosher, 2001;

Rasmussen, 2004; Rhoads, 1995). As a concept that has been used to capture the emotional,

processual, and purposeful ways identities are managed in everyday life, coming out can likely shed empirical or theoretical light on the 1.5GUY’s experiences and performances related to SofB, ULS, and everyday life.

McLean (2007) has claimed that there is an “idealization of coming out” which “positions coming out as ‘good,’ as it enables the healthy development of sexual identity, and positions non-disclosure as

‘bad’” (p. 154). Rasmussen (2004) has similarly argued that individuals who “fail in their duty to come out may be marked as lacking, while those who do come out may be celebrated as role models

promoting tolerance and inclusivity, empowering themselves and others” (p. 145). As such, coming out is not always motivated by personal choice, but also the dominant discourse of LGBT politics, which offers no other alternative but to come out (e.g. Rasmussen, 2004). While it has been documented that a positive organizational environment can empower LGBT teachers to come out (Connell, 2012), notably, not everyone wishes to come out in all aspects of their lives (Rasmussen, 2004). Further, individuals may return to the so-called “closet,” whereby purposely deciding not to divulge their LGBT orientation to others depending upon context, situation, and temporality (e.g.

Connell, 2012; McLean, 2007; Morris, 1997; Mosher, 2001; Rasmussen, 2004). The concept of returns to the closet demonstrates that coming out is a multi-linear and dynamic, rather than a uni-directional or definitively completed process and as such, can potentially help capture the a potential multi-dimensional or multi-linear processes of SofB in everyday life.

3.2.3.2 Identification

By undertaking purposeful action, individuals can enact ways of identification to particular peoples, places, and modes-of-being. In turn, these purposeful actions can manage and achieve a SofB

accordingly. “Identification” has been defined as a process and action derived from a verb—a process which furthermore requires specification of who is doing the identifying (Jenkins, 2014). Levitt and

46

Glick Schiller’s (2004) discussion about “ways of being” and “ways of belonging” further illustrates the difference between identity as a noun and “identify” as a verb:

Ways of being refers to the actual social relations and practices that individuals engage in rather than to the identities associated with their actions…Individuals can be embedded in a social field but not identify with any label or cultural politics associated with that field.

They have the potential to act or identify at a particular time because they live within the social field, but not all choose to do so (1010).

Thus, physical presence in a particular location does not mean an individual identifies with that place nor the associated peoples or practices. While an individual has the potential to identify, choice and desire are key, which again calls attention to the element of desire related to SofB. The differentiation between identity and identification reminds us that while 1.5GUY are resident in the United States, their physical presence does not define nor necessarily coincide with their emotional experiences. For example, scholars have documented how undocumented immigrants participate in their communities by going to school, volunteering, or working (e.g. Abrego, 2006, 2011; Cebulko, 2014; Coutin, 1999;

Gonzales, 2007, 2008, 2011a; Gonzales & Chavez, 2012; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2011). However, presence and action alone do not necessarily indicate if and how the 1.5GUY desire attachments to the peoples, places, and modes-of-being in the United States—a phenomenon which SofB can help

capture.

Levitt and Glick Schiller’s (2004) definition of “ways of belonging” can help potentially shed light on how 1.5GUY’s conscious actions are meant to manage SofB in everyday life:

Ways of belonging refer to practices that signal or enact an identity which demonstrates a conscious connection to a particular group. These actions are not symbolic but concrete, visible actions that mark belonging such as wearing a Christian cross or Jewish star, flying a flag, or choosing a particular cuisine. Ways of belonging combine action and an

awareness of the kind of identity that action signifies (p. 1010-1011).

In this regard, is it not just physical presence, but rather purposeful and conscious action that enacts identity and furthermore, illustrates the desire for identification with or belonging to a group, place, or

47

culture. As the scholars have suggested, ways of belonging combine action and awareness through visible performances; Levitt and Glick Schiller (2004) have stipulated that even seemingly mundane choices related to food or clothing may indeed be significant symbols to enact belonging. If these banal choices require conscious efforts, there may be a tension with the conceptualization of the everyday as rote routine presented earlier; this potential tension suggests a need to examine if and how everyday choices are conscious or un-reflected in relation to 1.5GUY’s everyday SofB.

3.2.3.2.1 Simultaneity

As transnational migration scholars, Levitt and Glick Schiller (2004) have also examined how ways of belonging can be multiple and overlapping. They, like other transnational migration scholars (e.g.

Basch, Glick Schiller & Szanton Blanc, 1994; Glick Schiller, 1999; Levitt & Glick Schiller, 2004) have claimed that individuals can undertake activities, routines, and traditions that signify attachments to both home and host countries. Of the second and transnational generation, Levitt (2009) wrote that

“rather than being caught between the pressure both to Americanise and to preserve homeland traditions, the children of immigrants create a complex set of practices of their own” (p. 1239).

Conceptually, simultaneity does not entail deciding between options, but rather creating complex practices. This particular scholarship reminds us that practices and identifications can be

simultaneously multiple and overlapping, which in turn suggests that a practice or choice in one situation does not necessarily translate to another. Furthermore, the concept of simultaneity suggests a possibility that SofB can entail simultaneous emotions, belongings, and practices instead of either/or experiences. Finally, simultaneity inspires questions about whether 1.5GUY simultaneously have positive and negative experiences and what this does to their SofB.

3.2.3.2.2 Assimilation

The notion of simultaneity is in contrast to notions that immigrants can only belong to one culture, nationality, or citizenship. Yuval-Davis (2011) described a “cricket test” once used by British

politicians to gauge SofB via emotional attachment. The rationale was that if an individual watching a cricket game between Britain and their ancestral homeland cheered for the latter, they did not truly

“belong” to Britain, even regardless of their citizenship status. In this regard, the cricket test is more closely related to the concept of assimilation,18 which in American Sociology is traditionally posited as

18 The terms incorporation and integration are frequently used to describe similar processes (e.g. Bloemraad et al., 2008).

48

a linear process through which individuals give up languages, identities, cultural practices, and loyalties in their process of becoming American (Bloemraad, Korteweg & Yurdakul, 2008; see also Alba & Nee, 2003; Gordon, 1964; Warner & Srole, 1945). Individuals increasingly and cumulatively become

“American” as they decreasingly identify with their native cultures.

Aleinikoff and Rumbaut (1998) have used the classical assimilation model to argue that the longer the period of time, the greater the sense of assimilation and identification:

As one becomes increasingly distant from the original immigration experience and its ethos, one moves towards a greater identificational ‘Americanization,’ which is

accompanied by upward socio-economic mobility, increasing acculturation and linguistic assimilation, and decreasing experiences and expectations of discrimination (p. 17).

Aleinikoff and Rumbaut (1998) have considered assimilation to be a “narrative of social belonging,”

where processes of adaptation and integration are typically uni-linear and completed within two or three generations. If assimilation is argued to increase cumulatively and uni-directionality, and if assimilation is related to social belonging, this raises questions as to if, over time, SofB is similarly uni-linear and cumulative for 1.5GUY, which includes reduced experiences or expectations of

discrimination over time.

Scholars have since introduced the concept of “segmented assimilation” to acknowledge that external hierarchies influence opportunities for integration and that increasing upward mobility is no longer necessarily a feature of assimilation (e.g. Portes & Rumbaut, 2006, Portes & Zhou, 1993; Zhou, 1999b). Nonetheless, assimilation still entails processes of individuals giving up past ways of

identification and belonging as they become more “American.” Chavez (2008) wrote: “incorporating immigrants into society entails a transformation from ‘other’ to ‘us.’ However, becoming part of the

‘us,’ or to be included as part of the ‘we,’ as in ‘we the people,’ is a contested process partly because it is not clear what this process entails” (p. 11). I do not aim to define “American,” as this is outside the purview of this dissertation; instead, I let the 1.5GUY create these definitions and identification in relation to how they experience and manage SofB in everyday life.

49