Constructing SofB through Everyday Activities

125

therefore discomfort, insecurity, and uncertainty—youth often refer to the U.S. as their home, making their relationship to home dynamic and complicated.

126

the immigrant community, focused on education, and promoted extra-curricular activities such as karate. These activities meant that she was exposed to citizens, rather than to fellow immigrants in her everyday life and practices. Thus, her participation with and connection to citizen peers meant that her daily life was conditioned more by activities and relations than ULS.

Sofía frequently used the word “normal” to describe her life, experiences, and identity growing up. I inquired about this sense of “normalcy” and “Americanness,” to which Sofía explained the differences between her and documented and undocumented immigrants:

I was very much integrated into the American culture. I was pretending to be one of the American people. I was taking classes with the smarter, white people. That is usually associated with Americans, whereas all of the Latinos, the Mexicans, are taking the average or below average classes. I was always hanging out with my white friends.

At this time, Sofía knew she was born in Mexico and was aware of her heritage, but still did not know of her ULS. Nonetheless, her narrative illustrates how she constructed her SofB and identity not only through educational participation, but also the participation in particular classes and in organizations and with a specific group of people—“white people.” Thus, it is not only educational inclusion or participation which structures SofB, but also the type or level of participation and the particular demographics of other individuals associated with those activities that matter.

Sofía described “white” activities as high level courses, membership and leadership positions in school organizations, contributing via community service, and extra-curricular activities and sports. As Sofía noted, “I never thought anything of it, but categorically speaking, it makes things very different. None of my friends were doing whatever it is Hispanic kids do. All of my white friends were doing whatever white people do.” It appears that everyday associations and participation—rather than race or ULS—

played the major factor in structuring her life, leading Sofía to construct a sense of “normalcy” in relation to her identity and modes-of-being in the U.S. Of her experience growing up, Sofía concluded

“in that sense, I was in this world, and my parents—they weren’t in that world, because they weren’t in school.” Notably, the differences in everyday activities, participation, and associations led Sofía to conclude that the experiences of undocumented immigrants are so contingent upon generation and cohort that individuals from the 1.5 versus second generation exist in two different worlds.

127

Marcelo, a Mexican-born 1.5GUY who came to Connecticut at age six, explained that learning English was initially challenging, but not necessarily traumatic. Instead, his statements illustrated a positive valence in association with school and language learning, especially as it allowed him to build enduring attachments: “that’s how I started learning English, by the friends I made there. There were two people that are still my good friends that helped me the most with learning English.” Everyday participation in school not only taught Marcelo, but allowed him to establish social connections.

Marcelo’s everyday participation also structured his identity and SofB in the process. Like other 1.5GUY I interviewed, Marcelo used the word “normal” to describe himself as similar to his peers. He also explained that due to participation in everyday activities, he did not know about his ULS:

I had no idea before because I was just living a normal life…everything that my friends had, I had. Being able to go to the park, being able to go to an after school program, since it was a public school, nothing was ever asked of me, but just to attend school. So I never knew.

Marcelo’s narrative illustrates that everyday actions and opportunities structure one’s sense of self and SofB. Further, because SofB is an intersubjective and social phenomenon, Marcelo assessed that he was “normal” as he compared himself, his possessions, and his practices as parallel to those of his peers. Especially due to his ability to participate on a par with American citizens and establish American connections, he had no knowledge of his ULS, any reason to question it, or feel different.

Similarly, Aja, who came from the Philippines at age four, explained that she never knew of her ULS growing up, especially as she felt included and assimilated in U.S. everyday life:

I was with other American peers and residents. I didn’t realize about my status. At the time, I was at a public school and I was just assimilated with everyone else. I was not aware of the difference in status…My family, my mom doesn’t really talk about it. She doesn’t tell me about the immigration status. It is not something we talk about at the table or that she ever mentions.

Like Marcelo, Aja’s narrative demonstrates the importance of context, relations, and activities in relation to SofB: because she was with Americans, she had no reason to question her difference or

128

ULS. Because she was included in school, she not only became, but also felt assimilated in relation to everyone else. Further, because her mother never talked about ULS, it did not factor into her everyday life early on. Here, the mix of parental approaches to disclosure, everyday participation, and

associations structure Aja’s everyday SofB.

Finally, unlike Marcelo and Aja, Beatriz knew of her ULS growing up. She came to New York from Ecuador at the age of twelve and explained that her ULS did not matter:

Since I came here, I knew I was [undocumented]. I didn’t have papers because the way I came. I started living here. I started getting used to the life here. I went to school and all of that. I didn’t care about the papers because I had the opportunity to study and to do the things that other people do.

Beatriz’s experience and the opportunity to participate on a par with peers in everyday life were more important to her residency, adaptation, and comfort than her ULS. Neither the knowledge of ULS nor the ULS itself appeared to challenge her everyday SofB, which was shaped by her opportunities and lived experiences, rather than her ULS. However, Beatriz added “now that I am a senior here and am trying to apply to college, I don’t have the same opportunities.” This alludes to the temporality of opportunities and the temporal influence of ULS—phenomena I return to in later chapters. Notably, regardless of knowledge about ULS, some 1.5GUY establish a SofB in relation to the peoples, places, and modes-of-being in the United States. Furthermore, narratives within this section illustrate that activities and performances shape identity, rather than vice versa. Finally, because 1.5GUY create their SofB not only through everyday performances, but also interpersonal comparisons, their SofB is

largely linked to perceptions of “normalcy.”