The (Im)Possibility of Being "Mexican-and-": Contemporary Mixed Identities Citing Mixed Histories

This paper begins from a somewhat different perspective than the tone of the CFP, though it is still firmly rooted in considerations of disciplining the self/other and reimagining community identity. As of 2010, Hispanics... [ view full abstract ]

This paper begins from a somewhat different perspective than the tone of the CFP, though it is still firmly rooted in considerations of disciplining the self/other and reimagining community identity.

As of 2010, Hispanics have the second highest intermarriage rate, at 25.7%; this rate has not changed much since 1980, reflecting both a history of high intermarriage and continued Hispanic immigration to the U.S. (Wang and Taylor, 2012). In 1963 in Los Angeles County, 25% of Mexican Americans were intermarried (Grebler, et al., 1970), and in one study, 38% of fourth-plus generation Mexican Americans today partnered with someone of another racial/ethnic background (Telles and Ortiz, 2000). Yet, mixed heritage Mexican Americans (i.e. individuals with both Mexican and another racial/ethnic background) experience group boundary policing from monoethnic Mexican Americans via authenticity testing as well as monoracism, the pressure to identify with only a single race or ethnicity (Jackson, Wolven, and Aguilera 2013; Romo 2011; Rúa 2001; Vasquez 2010).

With this in mind, this paper investigates how mixed heritage Mexican Americans experience the discursive and lived possibilities of being “Mexican-and-something else.” In-depth interviews in California uncovered how, despite thorough boundary policing by monoracially identified Mexican American communities, participants inherited resources from within those very communities that modelled for them the possibility and normalcy of Mexican-and- identities. Specifically, participants cited historical community as well as familial models of racial/ethnic mixing within Mexican communities, both in the U.S. and in Mexico. For example, a Mexican/black participant grounds his “AfroChicano” identity in the history of afromestizos in Mexico, while a Mexican/Chinese participant similarly cites the history of Chinese migration to Mexico; such historical iterations of mixing expand the context in which participants could understand their contemporary identities. Furthermore, participants often cited parents, grandparents, and more distant ancestors who were themselves also mixed heritage Mexican Americans, thus creating a personal lineage of mixedness. This paper also addresses differences in the availability of mixed histories for Mexican-white and dual-minority individuals.

These findings demonstrate that constructing and living a Mexican-and- identity is not an extemporaneous process, but instead rooted in nuanced histories. In this way, this study’s participants challenge narrow definitions of what it means to be Mexican American, foregrounding their recent racial/ethnic mixedness in addition to more common citations of historical Spanish/Indian mestizaje. I believe that mixed heritage Mexican Americans’ interest in expanding discursive concepts of who and what can be Mexican American has important implications for community cohesion and thus Mexican American political strength.