Читать книгу Tri-level Identity Crisis - Группа авторов - Страница 6

General Identity Crisis and Its Implication to Immigrants’ Identity Development

—Chris Kiesling, Anne Kiome Gatobu, and Tapiwa N. Mucherera

The moment an immigrant child (other than from Europe or born to Caucasian parents) steps on the North American soil, s/he is automatically considered a minority. A child of similar age who migrates from Europe, born of Caucasian parents, is automatically placed with the majority group. The current set up of the North American system is such that Caucasians (Whites) who are in power make the majority group, and those who come from places such as Africa, Asia, or Latin America—because of their birth place, accent or skin color—are readily categorized into the minority group. These immigrants do not fit the North American born minority model, because they are bringing with them some pre-determined cultural values that are usually in conflict with the North American values. The immigrant children, as any other minority in North America, have to deal with much racism and prejudice as inescapable as the air they breathe. Usually most new immigrants are oblivious to the racism and prejudices because it is not a default worldview from where they come. Soon enough they realize it is their new reality. They must contend with racism as they can neither escape their heritage nor the way the majority perceives them.

It does not matter what class these immigrant minorities belonged to in their country of origin, in North America they now acquire a new identity of being a minority. These children now have to deal with an identity development based on their status of being minorities in a majority culture. A few months after landing in North American, minority children find that they are also on a collision course of cultural and moral values.

In the following discussion, we establish the general identity crisis of all adolescent children irrespective of geographical location or cultural context. This is followed by a brief discussion of the identity crisis of minority persons living in a majority culture. Immigrant children experience the general identity crisis as part of their developmental maturity. They also experience being a minority within majority culture that favors those of white privilege. But to compound this further, they are also navigating between values of their native country embedded in what their parents and grandparents hold sacred, and the value system embedded in Western cultural institutions. It is this compounding of forces in the matrix of American immigrants that we believe manifests in a unique experience of dissonance—a phenomenon that we have chosen to refer to as a Tri-Level Identity Crisis.

General Identity Crisis and Its Implication for Ethnic-Immigrant Identity Formation

Erik Erikson posited that the central psychosocial task presented to adolescents in the West is the formation of a consolidated ego identity. With good resolution of this identity, a young adult could enter the various domains of adult engagement (occupational, educational, familial, political, religious) with a secure sense of competence, meaning, and purpose. Erikson in fact, described identity as a secure sense of personal sameness and historical continuity, yielding the ability to transcend any particular moment or circumstance.1 The necessity of identity consolidation he believed would be prompted naturally as young adults moved through various familial and societal engagements. If early childhood deficits or lack of social support during these years hampered identity formation; psychological, emotional, and social maladjustment could occur resulting in negative developmental outcomes. But what happens when historical continuity is disrupted? When an immigrant teenager experiences themselves differently in the presence of parents than with peers? And when movement between family and societal contexts makes any sense of identity consolidation seem elusive?

One of the most widely used conceptualizations for studying identity formation among adolescence in the West over the past fifty years has been a model proposed by Jim Marcia.2 Marcia suggested that the identity status of an individual could be measured based on two dimensions: (1) exploration—the presence or absence of a crisis indicated by the degree of an active period of deliberately considering and experimenting with alternatives; and (2) commitment—the presence or absence of movement toward ideological and interpersonal convictions. Marcia’s design offers four quadrants or categories of identity status:

Diffused—characterized by an absence of both exploration and commitment, a disabling of the capacities needed for identity formation

Foreclosed—defined by commitment based on parental or societal imposition of values without a period of exploration

Moratorium—indicative of involvement in active deliberation without yet having arrived at sustained commitments

Achieved—determined by clear commitment that follows an active period of searching resulting in internalization and owning of commitments for oneself.3

A good body of research now exists that supports a progressive movement over time from diffusion or foreclosure toward identity achievement. Identity achievement and moratorium have shown significant correlation with adaptability, higher levels of moral reasoning, reflectivity in decision-making, satisfaction in relationships and capacity for cognitive complexity. By contrast, research shows that the foreclosed status correlates with difficulties in problem solving, lower self-esteem, high need for social approval, and rigidity in belief system. Further, identity diffusion shows outcomes more consistent with lower levels of moral reasoning, avoidance of coping with problems, and higher levels of compulsivity.4

The importance of this research for immigrant populations living in the West is three-fold. It gives description to the normative ego developmental process for all teenagers—what we regard as first level identity crisis. It also provides theoretical conceptualization for processes through which minority culture youth fashion an identity amidst majority culture—what we regard as second level identity crisis, and it offers key insight into the development of ethnic identity formation distinct to immigrants—what we regard as third level identity crisis. Ethnic minority individuals progress from a state of unexamined ethnicity (diffusion or foreclosure) through a period of exploration into the meaning and implications of their group membership (moratorium), moving finally to an achieved ethnic identity characterized by the development of a secure sense of oneself as a member of an ethnic group.5 For the ethnic minority teenager in the US the question “who am I?” inevitably includes aspects of race, color and history associated with one’s ancestry. By ethnic identity we are here referring to “one’s sense of belonging to an ethnic group in the part of one’s thinking, perceptions, feelings and behavior that is due to ethnic group membership.”6 Hence for minority youth, questions of identity carry the rider, “Who am I as an African American?”; “Asian American?”; “Native American?”; etc.

Navigating the waters of ethnic identity formation can be especially turbulent for immigrant children from more traditional cultures. The clash between Western individualism and collective, communal expectations create conflicting sets of identification models, role expectations, and socio-cultural norms that leave diaspora teens and young adults especially susceptible to identity problems.7 The developmental task communicated to children and teens in Western culture is to develop mastery over one’s environment and move progressively toward greater autonomy and self-reliance. The hallmark of this development is typically a process of increased separation from parents and family toward achieving a sense of individuality and differentiation. This is usually accompanied by such things as experimentation with changing vocational aspirations; encouragement to socialize with new peer groups; becoming financially independent; involvement in romantic relationships; and making one’s own decisions about religious involvement and political orientation. Hence, adolescence and emerging adulthood in the West often requires a renegotiation of one’s connectedness to the family, with both the young adult and the parents accommodating to the expectation that the process of deciding who a young adult will be or become is now increasingly in the domain of the individual.8

In more collectivist cultures, identity may largely already be defined by role expectations that exist within a more extended familial and cultural community. In these cultures, the shift from childhood to adulthood (note the absence of adolescence as a recognized distinct stage of the life) may not be concerned with separation from family for the sake of increased individuation. Instead, development assumes the acceptance of greater responsibility for one’s place within the family or clan itself.9 Rather than the emphasis being placed on autonomous choice to self-define one’s place in society, the journey to adulthood in traditional society entails the attempt of elders and peers to clarify the many roles one is expected to occupy and the responsibilities that accompany those roles. Hence, ethnic identity may be experienced as something more ascribed than chosen.10

In the West, morals and values have been ensconced in a body of written law, giving definition to what is acceptable and what is punishable behavior. Authority figures are given power to enforce laws in such a way that punishments and consequences provide the means for directing behavior and relationships between citizens. Laws do not have to elicit any emotion or feeling to be binding, they simply have to be observed. As long as one is not breaking the law, he or she is regarded as a good, law-abiding citizen and can harmoniously live in regular society.

For most non-Western cultures however, morals and values are communally transacted. They are meant to become obligatory and determine normative behavior not as a matter of law but as a matter of the heart mediated through relationships. For instance, respecting one’s parents is one of the highest shared moral standards in the non-western world, but rarely is it ensconced in law. Its manifestation differs with varying communities but can generally be seen in how one speaks to his or her parents or how one relates to his/her parents and other seniors with respect [in itself a term that has differing meanings]. Speaking back, arguing or saying any ill to one’s parents is an ultimate moral failure and dishonors the whole family. In some societies it might even be regarded as bringing to the family a curse from God and ancestors. Even if the parents are wrong about something, the child is expected to find the humblest way to bring this to their attention but not blurt it out as though in competition or disgrace to the parent. The phrase “children are to be seen not to be heard” is a good example of an expectation that stems from this example of a moral-guiding, communal ethic rather than a legal-guiding society. The conflicting way that morals and values are shaped and held by a society creates dissonance between children and first immigrant parents, an experience of third-level identity crisis that will inevitably show up in many of the chapters of this book.

Anne recalls a heated conversation that ensued in her household with one of her sons who was seeking to go to a sleepover at a friend’s house. Recognizing how difficult it was for him to secure parental permission to stay at a house with someone his parents had never met, and contrasting this with friends who got easy permission with a simple phone call home, he commented in exasperation “I wish I were normal.” Anne recognized that the sleepover had totalized the experience of her child feeling essentially different. In this instance, a classic example of a clash in the movement to identity formation is seen. When the western child asked to stay at a friend for a sleepover, the parents recognized a need for the child to engage in self-differentiation towards identity. The immigrant parent on the other hand faces a complex rationale to reckon with: can I trust that my child will be safe in a home of people who represent those that do not trust me on the basis of my nationality? Can the immigrant parent trust that their child will be treated well by people she has never met in this racially divided world and/or society of the USA? When will this child grow to the maturity of appreciating closeness with family that does not choose friends over family? Why is a “sleepover” not part of our culture of visiting, that’ is, the parents visit each other first before the sleepover? In this illustration then one can clearly see that the rationale used by either parent to make decisions about a sleepover is quite different. While the western parent recognizes this is a good maturational gesture towards independence and identity formation, the immigrant parent approaches it with caution and negative implications. Meanwhile, for the immigrant teenager, “Who am I?” expands into the form, “What do I really believe and how do I communicate that to my parents whose expectations of me are opposite from my peer’s parents, and yet do so without sounding disrespectful?”

Seeking an amicable compromise between peers and parents for many immigrant children poses the challenge of living in bifurcated worlds. In most cases, the journey entails arguments, denouncements, warnings and consequences often accompanied by the pain of depression, loneliness, feeling different, and even self-hatred. Rapprochement with parents often feels like resignation to never be understood. Immigrant parents regard as disobedience and disrespect any attempt by their child at asserting Western individuality by speaking his/her mind and arguing that a behavior is not illegal. Like Western children, conflict with parents sometimes leads to hidden behavior. However, whereas children raised in the West may find some vindication if the behavior is not technically illegal; immigrant children often carry deep guilt and shame as their conscience senses a moral breach and disaffiliation with the larger family and community. Consequently, immigrant parents may begin to feel dissonance and a fluctuating confidence as they question their own parenting style. Fear of the unknown fosters disillusionment and despair.

Indeed, the developmental outcomes targeted by divergent cultures may function to affect differing practices and norms across the lifecycle. Cultures emphasizing individuation may feel compelled to wean a child from the breast earlier, place an infant more quickly into separate sleeping quarters, take advantage of institutionalized care that provides opportunity for both parents to work, get a child toilet-trained earlier, and use less authoritarian means of discipline. Other differences may appear later in the life course. Cultures emphasizing traditional or collectivist norms may set stricter curfews, demand obedience from teenagers, restrict social activities and monitor romantic allurements, look for family/tribal compatibility in the seeking of a spouse, expect kin-keeping from their grown children, and sanction elders to become the carriers of tradition to younger generations. The identity crisis created in immigrant children will no doubt vary from teen to teen dependent on such things as: parental assimilation to American culture, adherence to spiritual faith, sibling order, geographic location in the United States, age of the child’s exposure to the western world, family proximity and level of interaction with non-western families, and the level of parental cultural identity and sense of self.

Immigrant parents who have come from traditional cultures unaccustomed to recognizing adolescence or emerging adulthood as distinct stages of life carrying their own developmental tasks of increased individuation and autonomy may feel ill equipped to facilitate the resolution of conflict created by the clashes of culture during these years. To promote the preservation of their traditional culture that gave their own life anchoring and meaning, immigrant parents often attempt to promote traditional values and practices. After all, they reason that, that is how they were raised and they turned out well! Quite unwittingly, the host culture in this protective process can become demonized—e.g., “that corrupted American society.”11 Whereas there may be legitimacy to such cultural critiques, such brandishing creates a difficult double-bind for teenagers being raised in these families. To succumb to decadent American values can be regarded as a damnable defiance of one’s parents and heritage, as well as a denial of one’s very ontology; but to not assimilate to the host culture is to suffer feelings of isolation, abnormality, or other consequences of disaffiliation.

Ethnic identity that is more salient in traditional culture has strong components of social development that tap deeply into feelings of belongingness. Hence, ethnic exploration typically involves the process by which individuals explore, learn, and become involved with their ethnic group. By contrast, ego identity that is so cherished in Western culture operates at the individual, and psychological level. Processes of individuation or differentiation are often pitted against aspects of connectedness, belonging or integration across many domains of identity.12 In very traditional cultures, for example, a woman is not regarded as a person in her own right; rather her identity is defined by her parents when she is young, and when she becomes an adult her husband and his family redefine her identity.13 More moderate examples might be the young man who works two jobs while attending college in order to financially support siblings back home or the young woman who ends a courtship on the basis of parental disapproval. Each of these may find their Western counterparts encouraging them to relinquish such filial piety and “live their own life.” Indeed, in psychotherapy, such dispositions of connectedness to one family of origin may be mis-diagnosed as diffused relationships or dependent disorders.

Research has begun to explore how parents from traditional cultures navigate these complicated waters with their young and some helpful conceptualizations are beginning to emerge. Strategies that “prepare the young for bias” such as teaching them how to respond to discrimination or subversive value judgments may prove to be more pro-social than strategies that “promote mistrust” such as inciting fear about the potential negative consequences of interacting with others. Family conversations that center discussion on values such as equality and coexistence may facilitate higher reasoning that equips the young best for adult interaction.14

A Particular Model of Racial Identity Development (for All Minorities)

In the following section we address some of the minority cultural identity crisis and development minority children have to face with special focus on the North American context, looking through the lens of Sue and Sue’s “Racial/Cultural Identity Development Model” (R/CID Model). The model has five stages of identity development: Conformity, Dissonance, Resistance and Immersion, Introspection, and Integrative.

Sue and Sue characterize this first stage, conformity, by noting the eagerness to “fit in” that most minorities who leave their country of origin and migrate to North America feel despite bringing with them their own culture.15 Much energy may be spent on trying to assimilate into the North American (White) culture at the expense of his/her own. Interestingly, the idea of trying to “fit in” is similar to what Sue and Sue say typifies even those minorities who are born into the North America experience:

Similar to individuals in the pre-encounter stage . . . minority individuals are distinguished by their unequivocal preference for dominant cultural values over their own. White Americans in the United States represent their reference group, and the identification set is quite strong. Lifestyles, value systems, and cultural/physical characteristics that resemble White society are highly valued, whereas those most like their own minority group are viewed with disdain or may hold low salience to the person.16

As this stage is correctly named, the minority individual is aiming at developing an identity that suits the North American White cultural context. Conformity represents an absence of identity exploration. When first encountering a new culture, individuals may show no interest in actively searching for the meaning and importance of their ethnicity in their day-to-day functioning. They may uncritically adopt the values, preferences and attitudes of the majority culture, sometimes internalizing negative stereotypes of their own ethnic group held by those in the dominant society.17

The downside is that the environment is not as accommodating and nurturing of that new identity. Geographic distance and a lack of common interests tend to eliminate the likelihood of extended family from the homeland becoming natural role models for immigrant children. Parents may attempt to bridge the chasm by encouraging phone calls, showing pictures of extended kin, and storytelling, but all too often immigrant teens fall under the influence of Western sports heroes, pop culture, or political icons. Consequently, ethnic minority youth growing up in diaspora movements may be at risk of failing to achieve a secure ego identity if they simply adopt attributes imputed to them by the dominant culture. Students in this state of unexamined ethnic identity often report the poorest self-concepts.

The fact that the minority is trying to fit into a context that is not accepting creates much tension in trying to assimilate. This subjective tension propels one into a posture of what Sue and Sue term as dissonance. How can one accept him/herself as a valued and respected individual member of the society, yet have to deal with the fact of trying to fit into a cultural value system that devalues him or her, feels oppressive, and sees one as inferior and inadequate? To fit into this oppressive cultural mold, the immigrant may first deny him/herself and look up to the White cultural values and system as superior. Seeing majority culture as one to be admired and emulated, they may internalize a sense of themselves as inferior and less intelligent. Sue and Sue say about the dissonance stage:

No matter how much one attempts to deny his or her own racial/cultural heritage, an individual will encounter information or experiences that are inconsistent with culturally held beliefs, attitudes, and values. An Asian American who believes that Asians are inhibited, passive, inarticulate, and poor in people relationships may encounter an Asian Leader who seems to break all these stereotypes. . . . A Latino/a who feels ashamed of his or her cultural upbringing may encounter another Latino/a who seems proud of his cultural heritage. An African American who believes that race problems are due to laziness, untrustworthiness, or personal inadequacies of his or her own group may suddenly encounter racism at a personal level. Denial begins to breakdown, which leads to a questioning and challenging of the attitudes/beliefs of the conformity stage.18

A shift begins to occur when the person in dissonance realizes that there is something problematic about the system, not about who s/he is as an individual or about his or her cultural group. S/he becomes aware that s/he has bought into false stereotypes about minorities. The person begins to realize the numerous ways that ethnic identification and exploration is commonly more proximal and more salient for ethnic minority than for members of the majority group. The person starts to observe minorities who have tried to work hard to change their situation, yet the cultural system does not allow them to go past certain levels despite their efforts. In addition, these individuals become aware of the “glass ceiling” that minorities have to deal with in corporate America and in the “White world.” This experience of being subjugated, insists that integration of ethnic identity becomes a part of ego development if it is to allow for the development of a positive self-concept.19

This realization about how society is set up impels the minority individual into the next stage of resistance. The resistance is against the oppressive White social systems and most of the times not necessarily against White individuals. Sue and Sue say the following about the resistance and immersion stage:

The minority person tends to endorse the minority-held views completely and to reject the dominant values of society and culture. The person seems dedicated to reacting against White society and rejects White social, cultural and institutional standards as having no personal validity. Desire to eliminate oppression of the individual’s minority group becomes an important motivation of individual’s behavior. . . . There are considerable feelings of guilt and shame that in the past the minority individual has sold out his or her own racial and cultural group. . . . Anger is directed outwardly in a very strong way toward oppression and racism.20

In the resistance stage the minority realizes he has been sold a “bill of goods” and that what s/he has been taught about minorities in general (he or she included) is not true especially as it pertains to the stereotypes. The focus and energy at this stage is more on the dismantling of the unjust system rather than individual prejudices. The person in this stage realizes that there is power in numbers and so joins other minorities of like minds who are willing to work against injustice and inequality in any form. A reference group that validates a sense of self and provides a place of belonging may become increasingly critical during the adolescent and young adult years. Some individuals in the resistance stage may express anger, sourced in part in the sense of having sold out especially in the conformity stage. How could they have been so blind to buy into or want to join such a system that is so oppressive to one? The anger is both at the self and those who have created such a system. Individuals in this stage rely on their minority group for support yet the energy that drives them in that group is based on anger, even though it is anger at the system. As much as the anger is against an unjust and unequal system, this can be very draining for someone to fight a system that has been in place for over 400 years.

The next question then is; for these individuals to survive in such a system, how can they spend energy fighting to transform the system and yet be able to make an everyday living? In addition, some individuals also find themselves in situations where they feel they can work in changing the system yet have friends who are White, without experiencing any guilt feelings about those relationships. However, to please one’s own group, and having a relationship with Whites may appear as “selling out.” In other words, the minority group starts questioning how someone who is committed to change is able to “sleep with the enemy,” so to speak. This is the introspection stage, of which Sue and Sue say:

The individual begins to discover that this level of intensity of feelings (anger directed toward White society) is psychologically draining and does not permit one to really devote more crucial energies to understanding oneself or one’s own racial-cultural group. . . . Often, in order to please the group (own group), the individual is asked to submerge individual autonomy and individual thought in favor of group good. A Latino/a individual who may form a deep relationship with a White person may experience considerable pressure from his or her culturally similar peers to break off the relationship because that White person is the “enemy.” However, the personal experiences of the individual may, in fact, support this group view.21

In the introspection stage the individual has to balance the sense of the need for justice and yet maintain being in relationship with those who may look like the ones perpetuating the unjust system. One realizes that as much as Whites benefit from the racist system in place, not all Whites are supportive of the system. These minorities have to learn to bridge between the two worlds. They have to start learning to negotiate between two differing cultures that hold conflicting values. To feel grounded again, one has to go to the “internal self,” to get a sense of who s/he is in such a conflicting world. Hence the stage calls for introspection—accessing one’s internal world and examining one’s own mental and/or emotional state. In the introspection stage the individual is trying to resolve some of the dissonance created by the reality of a racist and unjust system; and the fact that they have friends and have been in relationship with some kind and justice-loving White people.

The process of introspection moves one to the next level of the integrative awareness stage, the balancing of a sense of the inner-self and security in light of an unjust society one has to exist. Sue and Sue say about the stage:

Minority persons in this stage have developed an inner sense of security and now can own and appreciate unique aspects of their culture as well as those in US culture. Minority culture is not necessarily in conflict with White dominant cultural ways. Conflicts and discomforts experienced in the previous stage become resolved, allowing greater individual control and flexibility. There is now belief that there is acceptable and unacceptable aspects in all cultures and that it is very important for the person to be able to examine and to accept and reject those aspects of a culture that are not seen as desirable. . . . The minority person has a strong commitment to eliminate all forms of oppression.22

One of the key issues at this stage is that the minority person is not just focused on injustice to his/her own group, but is concerned about all forms of injustice. The individual is able to accept his/her own minority cultural values and aspects of the White cultural values without necessarily experiencing conflict. There is the realization that all cultures have aspects that are undesirable.

When the active exploration of these meanings leads to the acquisition of a clear, internalized, and confident sense of one’s own ethnicity, identity achievement is said to have occurred. Preliminary studies show that young adult students who have integrated ethnic identity into an achieved ego identity report more positive psychosocial competencies that predict favorable outcomes in occupational, educational, political, and religious domains.23 An immigrant child, or a child born to immigrant parents may wrestle with these issues of identity development at two conflicted levels. At one level, they have to live at home with parents who may be pushing the child to assimilate, while the same child is facing a racist environment in school, work, etc. How does one assimilate in a racist system? The child is caught in between the dilemma of respecting the parents’ views over against standing up to an unjust system.

In the next chapters, we provide a more personal look into the life of immigrant families in the USA. This chapter then segues to the middle section of this book where we have assembled a group of scholars, asked them to conduct interviews and do research on those in their ethnic group who have immigrated to North America. Where possible we have asked each writer to: describe main avenues of migration to the United States, explore religious values and cultural traditions specific to their group, analyze unique challenges the group experienced in navigating Western culture (e.g., language, barriers, symbolism, immigration papers, stereotypes), and provide a window into the effects such challenges have had on their general life in the United States (financial, marital, familial, communication with children, community relationships, etc.). Through this examination we have tried to surface unique identity challenges from the family and society that contribute to an understanding of the multi-layered ways that immigrants establish an identity in America.

It is important that we offer a distinction made so well by Agwu Chinaka24 regarding first generation, 1.5 generation and second generation children. First generation immigrants are those who migrated to North America once they were already formed in their country of origin identity. Usually those who migrate at college age and above will fall under this definition. According to Rumbaut and Ima, the 1.5 generation immigrants refer to those who immigrated to North America after school age.25 The implication here is that they already have some social cultural influence of their country of origin in their formative years—an aspect that plays a major role when they experience tri-level identity crisis for better adjustment. The most known group is the second-generation immigrants who are mainly children of first generation immigrants born in North America. Though pre-school children born outside of north American may technically be termed as second-generation immigrants because of lack of influence of their cultural heritage, the reality of their immigration status has huge impact on their identity formation, especially towards their sophomore high school year as they begin to think of college opportunities. Those born in the US have access to whatever college they choose and do not have to think of immigration status or educational finances. They can easily get college loans through FAFSA. Those who came as children must now contend with these major differences and in some cases issues of deportation. While these might look like harmless differences, the ramifications are huge with regard to their still forming cultural and social identity. Such differences will sometimes be the reason that parents will be more cautious about allowing their young adults to enjoy all aspects of college, as they are afraid that the child may do things that are illegal and end up having their papers denied or deported. The highly politicized case of DACA children is a classic example of implications on identity formation of the two distinctive second generation immigrants. Generally, the chapters in this volume focus on first generation immigrant parents and their second generation children. However, we did not restrict authors to stay within these parameters, but allowed them to utilize categories that best helped them characterize the populations about which they are writing.

The last section of the book offers insightful ways of navigating and minimizing adverse dissonance in children of immigrants through communal-based rites of passages and through the adaptation of family palavers that we believe offer promise for smoother pathways as immigrant families navigate the perilous terrain of tri-level identity crises.

1. Erikson, Childhood and Society; Identity.

2. Marcia, “Development and Validation”; “Identity in Adolescence.”

3. Marcia, “Development and Validation”; “Identity in Adolescence.”

4. St. Louis and Liem, “Ego Identity.”

5. Phinney, “Stages of Ethnic Identity Development”; “Three Stage Model.”

6. Rotheram and Phinney, “Introduction.”

7. Kundu and Adams, “Identity Formation, Individuality, and Connectedness.”

8. Kundu and Adams, “Identity Formation, Individuality, and Connectedness.”

9. Ahmed, “Adolescent Development.”

10. Côté and Levine, Identity Formation, Agency, and Culture.

11. Kundu and Adams, “Identity Formation, Individuality, and Connectedness.”

12. Kundu and Adams, “Identity Formation, Individuality, and Connectedness.”

13. Kundu and Adams, “Identity Formation, Individuality, and Connectedness.”

14. Phinney, “Stages of Ethnic Identity Development.”

15. Sue and Sue, Counseling the Culturally Diverse, 297

16. Sue and Sue, Counseling the Culturally Diverse, 296.

17. Phinney, “Stages of Ethnic Identity Development,” 34–35.

18. Sue and Sue, Counseling the Culturally Diverse, 299.

19. Phinney, “Stages of Ethnic Identity Development,” 34–49.

20. Sue and Sue, Counseling the Culturally Diverse, 301.

21. Sue and Sue, Counseling the Culturally Diverse, 302–3.

22. Sue and Sue, Counseling the Culturally Diverse, 304

23. St. Louis and Liem, Ego Identity.

24. Agwu, Acculturation and Racial Identity Attitudes.

25. Strama, Deconstructing the American Dream.