Chapter
14
Biracial
Identity Development: A Reflection on
Current Models
Robert Awai
As the product of a racially
“mixed” marriage myself, I have always been extremely focused on my own
identity in relation to other biracial individuals. I have often wondered where the “sameness” of our experience lies
in relation to those of others. This
has led to a review of the literature pertaining to models of identity
development for biracial individuals.
Of these, I have chosen three which best represent the range of opinions
(Stonequist, 1937; Poston, 1990; Kerwin, and Ponterotto, 1995); further
reflection on the validity of these models from my personal perspective
follows. I also present some of the
implications these models may hold for cross-cultural counselling and I have put forward some areas for future
research.
I have been queried about my racial identity (erroneously, my
‘nationality’).
People, mostly White, have wondered why, I do not choose to
pass as white.
Other people, mostly Black have demanded to know why I say I
am biracial
instead of ‘just admitting’ I am black. . . People have given
me advice on how
I should talk, think, act and feel about myself racially.
Repeatedly, people have
tried to define my existence for me. (Braun Williams, 1999, p. 33)
Current/Historical Models of
Biracial Identity Development
The earliest model of biracial
identity development is Stonequist’s (1937) concept of the “marginal
personality”, and there are few others. Poston’s (1990) proposition for an
“updated” model of biracial identity development is the first in a small series
of such theories put forward in the more recent past. Kerwin and Ponterotto’s (1995) contribution attempts to address
some of the problems created in adapting the other models to every
situation. One important thing to note
around all of these models is that they attempt to deal with the issue from the
American perspective, and that most of the research is drawn from studies involving
those of African-American/Dominant White descent. This is markedly different from the Canadian context because of
the differing national policies regarding multicultural issues, and holds
implications for future research.
The “Marginal Person” Model
Stonequist’s (1937) model of
the ‘marginal person’ is what can be termed a ‘deficit model (Poston 1990;
Kerwin and Ponterotto, 1995). Drawing
mainly from research which focused on the pathology of black families in the
U.S., this model assumes that people who are of “mixed race” have problems with
identity development because they are associated with two worlds, but belong
fully to neither, and they are “deficient” of
the ability to do so. Normal
processes of identity development are exacerbated within this model (Gibbs,
1987). The individual is thrust into a
state of internal conflict through the desire to hold both identities
simultaneously, while at the same time being unable to commit to either.
Poston (1990) notes that being
marginal as an individual “does not necessarily lead to a marginal personality”
(p 153) and that such conflict may be more a factor of social structural
prejudice rather than internal conflict.
It has also been shown to be possible for a person to have a healthy
integration of both their parent cultures without such conflict ( Gibbs,
1987). One large factor influencing the
sense of marginality within the individual is the level of support given to
each aspect of racial heritage by the individuals' parents; another is the
level of acceptance and exposure for either parental race/culture within the
individuals' immediate community (Brown, 1990). These problems aside, the
concept of marginality has had a large hold over the literature involving
biracial individuals, and continues to do so (Kerwin & Ponterotto, 1995).
Poston’s Five Stage Model
Up until Postson’s (1990) call
for an update, the best modern models available had been adaptations of Cross’s
(1971) model of Afro-American self-actualisation or Morton and Atkinson’s
(1983, in Poston, 1990) five stage model of Minority Identity Development
(MID). Although both of these models
have been updated (Cross & Fhagen-Smith, 1996), neither addresses the
issues faced by biracial individuals specifically. These models, particularly
the MID, are somewhat general in approach.
This leads to a lack of application to individual minority groups.
In particular, Poston (1990)
felt that development would be different in biracial individuals for several
reasons. First, models based on homogeneous minority development do not
acknowledge that the individual might chose one set of cultural values over
another at a given stage. Second, the
individual may come from both minority and dominant culture groups. Third, the integration of several identities
is not recognised. Finally, these
models assume “some acceptance into the minority culture of origin” (Poston,
1990, p. 153). Biracial individuals may feel that they are “rejected by both
the majority and minority groups because they fit neither in terms of physical
appearance, family background, and loyalty” to specific groups (Gibbs, 1987, p.
269).
What is proposed in Poston’s
(1990) model is a five-stage process during which attitudes towards the varying
‘reference groups’ within the individual's background are developed. These ‘Reference Group Orientations’ (RGO’s)
are based around Cross’ (1987) five stage model, more recently elaborated in
the work of Cross and Fhagen-Smith. (1996).
Poston’s (1990) five stage model involves group identification, racial
preference and attitudes, while personality traits examining self efficacy are
excluded. The five stages of Poston’s
theory are:
1.- Personal Identity: The
individual has developed independent of RGO attitudes which have not been
integrated. Identity is based largely
on self-constructs originating within the family. Poston noted that parental attitudes towards race or
racialisation would have greatest effect at this stage.
2.- Choice of Group Categorization: The individual
is ‘pushed’ to choose an identity through society's need for definition. This can cause “crisis and alienation for
the individual” (Poston, 1990, p. 153).
The choice is primarily limited to the minority or the dominant culture
group. Poston characterised this stage
as taking place before individuals have
a level of cognitive development allowing them to hold multiple cultures
concurrently within their identity.
3.- Emeshment/Denial: The individual becomes
confused through guilt at having to choose/deny one identity. A large portion of this stage is seen as the
result of feelings of ‘disloyalty’ to the parent whose heritage is secondary
for the individual. Gibbs (1987) outlined this as a cause of various
pathologies in biracial adolescents within the social service system, and
Poston adapted these findings in his development of this stage (Kerwin &
Ponterotto, 1995).
4.- Appreciation: The biracial individual in this
stage begins to broaden the ROG’s to include both groups. Identification is
still with one main culture/group, yet there is significant effort invested in
the exploration and involvement with the secondary heritage.
5.- Integration: Individuals at this stage “tend to
recognise and value all of their ethnic identities” (Poston, 1990, p.
154). The individual continues to
acquire knowledge of both backgrounds, and develops from the secure space of
the ‘integrated’ individual.
Poston’s model is important in
that it recognises the role that the internalisation of outside prejudice and
values has on the individual’s self-conception. It also examines the way in which family and peer influences
affect identity choice. Kerwin and Ponterotto (1995) note that this limits the
biracial individual in that it suggests that periods of confusion and resultant
maladjustment are mandatory. The model
also outlines the need for strong family and community support as essential in
resolution of conflicts. Poston sees this aspect of the model as a particular
benefit in the development of preventative programs building support through
parent and counsellor training and awareness building.
The Kerwin-Ponterotto Model
The model proposed by Kerwin
and Ponterotto (1995) draws upon those previously discussed, as well as
attempting to integrate further research which shows that personal, societal,
and environmental factors are further enmeshed in the process than originally
accounted for (Kerwin, 1991). It
attempts to recognise the individuality of both situation and resolution of
self-concept for the biracial person.
This outlook contains six stages based around the developmental
milestones of Pre-school, Entry to School, Preadolescence, Adolescence,
College/Young Adulthood, and Adulthood.
The specifics for each stage are:
1.-Preschool: Racial awareness emerges earlier than
is generally found in the individual population (Kerwin 1991). The authors theorised this as the result of
higher levels of difference within the child’s immediate social groupings (i.e.
the family). There is also the
supposition that parental anxiety of the biracial status of the child may play
a role in awareness, and there is some indication that a lack of such anxiety
may have differential effects on the development of racial awareness.
2.- Early School: The sense of self developed by
the child through the limited social communities of family and friends is
challenged upon entry to school. The authors note that questions such as “What
are you?” (Kerwin & Ponterotto, 1995, p. 211) may be asked more frequently to multiracial children.
Self-identification with a given group or social category begins to become a
factor in the biracial child’s development.
The way in which children speak of their biraciality is largely
dependant on parental input. If the
parents provide good self-concept, or at least a unified self-concept for the
child, Kerwin and Ponterotto (1995) state that this is the label which children
will “typically use to describe themselves” (p. 212). The attitudes of the school community in terms of role modelling
and prejudices begin to play a larger role as well.
3.- Preadolescence: An increased identification of
group membership as being factored upon skin colour, appearance, language, and
culture is apparent; however, the tendency is to use societal labels as
descriptive terms. Awareness of difference between the parents typically occurs
at this stage (Kerwin, 1991).
4.- Adolescence: This stage is characterised as the
“most challenging for biracial youngsters due to both developmental factors
characteristic of this age group and societal pressures” (Kerwin &
Ponterotto, 1995, p. 212). The pressure
to chose one strain of the individual’s background over another is related to
Erikson’s (1968) conception of “ingroups” and “outgroups”. The pressures of
dating add to this mix. Brown (1990) and Gibbs (1987) note that this last
factor is especially important to biracial adolescents. Issues of interracial dating may bring out
race in a way the individual has never before conceived.
5.- College/Young Adulthood: Continued immersion or
rejection in one or the other of the individuals may continue, although
rejection of societal limits and an acceptance of the dual nature of
biraciality is more likely. This is due to increased self-efficacy accompanying
this stage of life generally. The advantages
of a biracial heritage become clearer at this stage, as do the disadvantages
(Kerwin & Ponterotto, 1995).
6.- Adulthood: Development of a biracial identity
is conceived as a lifelong process.
Continuing integration is necessary throughout the individual's life
span. Kerwin and Ponterotto (1995) state that “…with the successful resolution
of earlier stages there will be a continuing exploration and interest in
different cultures, including one’s own” (p. 213). The individuals may be much more flexible in terms of their
individual identity as a result of their experience and be able to accept a
wider range of interpersonal relations.
This latest model of biracial identity development
has been “presented as an integrated framework” of development (Kerwin &
Ponterotto, 1995, p. 215), and attempts to specifically outline racial
awareness and biracial acceptance as a factor of social expectations and
individual processes. It attempts to move away from the ‘labelling’ associated
with the marginal person model, and the idea of “necessary conflict” in
“choosing” one parental heritage over the other as in Poston’s (1990)
model. There is also an attempt within
this model to publicise the fact that biracial individuals are willing and able
to discuss their experiences in holding a dual identity (Kerwin, et al.,
1993).
A Personal Reflection on the
Models
The concept of claiming race
and heritage is not easy for the biracial individual, according to what has
been presented. This has certainly been
my own experience. I am the firstborn
child of a Chinese man, whose nationality is Trinidadian, and a white
Anglo/Scottish Canadian woman. I grew
up in a small town in British Columbia where the majority were of white
European descent. At the same time, many
of the interactions within my extended “family” involved interracial couples
and their offspring (cousins and family friends).
As a biracial individual I
have felt conflicting emotions, varying levels of discrimination, and have been
faced with choices regarding how I identify myself and my heritage. As I have
read and re-read the models presented, my own struggle for self-definition is
highlighted in varying and -sometimes- conflicting ways. Each of these models has a certain “ring of
truth” yet none encompasses fully my own experience in developing a solid and
definable identity; nor does any model reflect the reality that I am, and have
always been, biracial and have never been able to separate this into “parts.”
Although I have certainly felt the strain, in social situations, of “not
belonging,” this has not been (for me) a matter of my being the “tragic” figure
from Stonequist’s (1939) model of the “marginal person.” Like Poston (1990), I see this as having to
do with the systems and structures that surrounded and supported me in my
development. Little mention was made of race or socialisation issues -either
within my immediate or extended family.
Instead, the focus of difference was on my father’s cultural heritage as
a person from Trinidad. Trinidadian culture is an amalgam of many different
heritages, influenced greatly by the European colonialist structures which
shaped and formed its social systems. Although not a racially harmonious
society by any stretch of the imagination, each root culture has grown and
adapted a distinct personality within the whole. For one take on the hypbrid
nature of this culture, an interested reader may wish to view Amitava Kumar’s
film Pure Chutney which focuses on the post-colonial experiences of
ethnic Indians in Trinidad. I
personally find myself identifying with this variegated aspect of my dual
nature in a positive way, and actively dislike the idea of being called
“marginal.”
The individuality within the
biracial experience is mentioned (i.e. Gibbs, 1987) as being a large limiting
factor in the model. The fact that my father presented as bicultural, and came
from a society which has developed a multi-ethnic heritage, has allowed me to
escape the labelling necessary for Stonequist’s ideas to be fully applicable.
“Marginality” in my experience had to do with not being completely within the
“white” community in which I grew up, although this had more to do with my
darker skin-tone. It is my personal
proposal that the social structures of Trinidadian society, and the legacy of
British colonialism, fit well with the Canadian experience in which I grew up,
and keep the differences in my cultural heritage largely limited to culinary or
musical exposure.
The concept from these models
which resonates most in my own life is that of feeling “pressure to choose”
(Poston, 1990, p. 153) between one heritage and the other in my own
identification. Certainly, the largest struggle I have felt within my life has
involved commitment to definition, both in myself and in my attitudes. Far from having the negative influences
possible, this has instead led to an appreciation of my double heritage, and a
flexibility in my personal outlook, which I feel goes beyond that of many of my
mono-racial peers. The difficulty lies in what Poston (1990) aptly describes as
integration. The ability to claim an
integrated identity –what Braun Williams (1999) aptly describes as the “I”– is
individual, and is an inherent part of being biracial from birth. Claiming this identity is what is important
in being able to develop a sense of self, and in being able to present oneself
as a whole, authentic person. What is
needed is the social and structural support within the family and within the
individual’s community environment, to allow an exploration of the various
aspects of the self which make up the reality of a biracial individual.
The Reference Group
Orientation that is most important can only be discovered and defined by the
individual. This is consistent with the
need for “community education” and support throughout the developmental span,
as advocated through the Kerwin-Ponterotto (1995) model. The biracial individual is then free to
discover and become energised about the uniqueness of his or her reality. One
of my former co-workers reported to me that her eight year-old son thought of
his biracial status as “way cool,” and I have had numerous conversations with
other biracial individuals highlighting both the similarities and the
differences within that experience. There is a definite need for the models of
biracial identity development to further include this range of difference, and
to further integrate the interplay between cultures and race instead of being
focused largely on race alone.
Implications for Counselling
and Research
One of the most important
aspect of cross-cultural counselling is the ability to hold an awareness of
client worldview and experiences (Arredondo, 1999). This includes not only
being aware of the client’s own processes with Rogers' (1961) concept of “unconditional
positive regard”; instead as counsellors, this involves actively exploring with
the client the effects that cultural/racial difference has had on their lives,
and becoming aware of one's own position as cultural/racial beings. Although
the conflicts experienced by biracial individuals are to some degree universal,
and to another the product of their minority status, there are definite
similarities which allow the process to be seen as discrete. In particular, the “dual” nature of the
biracial individual disallows simply following a homogeneous model. Braun
Williams (1999) notes that “it is our preconceived notions and unresolved
feelings about race and culture that present some of the most formidable
barriers to expressions of empathy in therapy” (p.75). Truly effective cross-cultural communication
allows for the unique position held by biracial individuals in holding more
than one identity simultaneously.
Recently, there has been a
focus on highlighting the implications of cultural diversity on counselling
practice. Witness the recent issue of The
Journal of Counselling and Development (vol. 77, 99, special issue) along
with the ACA’s recently developed guidelines for multicultural competency (Sue,
Arredondo, & Medavis, 1992;
Arredondo, 1999). As discussed,
very little of this literature focuses on the biracial population. Given the ever-increasing percentage of the
population which is able to claim biracial status (Poston, 1990), along with
the need to include biracial status as a context for counselling, this is an
unrealistic state of affairs.
Several possibilities for
research exist in this area. The social
factors which affect biracial individuals and the degree to which these
variances influence experience should be examined. Poston (1990) calls this
examining the “salience” of the social factors involved within the choice
process. This would include a more
comprehensive examination of the interaction between cultural and racial
factors. It would also be useful to investigate the degree to which biracial
individuals identify with the above models through an exploration of their
present identity. Similarities and
differences in the formation process could be drawn from their individual
experiences to form a more cohesive model of biracial identity development. In
much the same way, the communication processes and styles of interactions
within interracial families could be examined to gain a better understanding of
the structures and support needed to develop a more integrated biracial identity. A stronger effort should also be made to
investigate the topic within the Canadian context, given that the governmental
policy of “multiculturalism” is somewhat different from the “melting pot”
ideology existing within the United States.
Conclusion
Although few models of
identity development specific to biracial individuals do exist, these lack a
comprehensive integration into the “dual” heritage that biraciality
imparts. In my personal experiences, it
is true that the dichotomy of my parentage has led to a questioning search for
identity; it is, however, equally true that my dual nature has always been
simply a “fact of life.” This
integration can be reached only after certain developmental processes within
the existing models occur and this is not consistent with the reality of
existence. New ways of thinking about
identity development in the biracial individual must be explored. This has many
implications for counselling. Without an awareness and the understanding of the
context of the biracial individual we -as counsellors- are limiting our ability
to work in empathic and understanding ways.
References
Arredondo, Patricia
(1999). Multicultural counselling
competencies as tools to address oppression and racism. Journal of Counseling and Development. Vol. 77,
(pp. 102-109).
Atkinson,
D.R., Morton,G. and Sue, D.W. (1989). Counselling American minorities: A
cross-cultural perspective. (3rd Ed), Dubque, Indiana: William
C. Brown
Braun
Williams, C. (1999). Claiming a biracial identity: Resisting social
constructions of race and culture. Journal of Counselling and Development. Vol. 77,
(pp. 32-35).
Brown, P.M. (1990). Biracial
identity and social marginality. Child and Adolescent Social Work. Vol 7(4), (pp. 319-337).
Cross,
W.E. Jr., (1987). A two-factor theory of black identity: Implications for the
study of identity development in minority children. In Phinney, J.S. and
Rotheram, M.J. (Eds.) Children’s ethnic socialisation: Pluralism and
development. (pp 117-133). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications
Cross,
W.E. Jr., and Fhagen-Smith, P. (1996). Nigresence and ego identity
development. In Pedersen, P.B, Draguns,
J.G, Lonner, W.J, and Trimble, J.E. (Eds.) Counselling across cultures.
(4th ed), (pp. 108-123).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications
Erikson,
E. (1963). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton
Gibbs,
J.T. (1987). Identity and
marginality: Issues in the treatment of
biracial adolescents. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol
52(2), pp 265-278
Ivey,
A.E., Ivey, M.B., and Simek-Morgan, L. (1993). Counselling and
psychotherapy: A multicultural perspective. (3rd Ed.), Boston, Massechusetts: Allyn Bacon
Kerwin,
C. (1991). Racial identity development
in childeren of black/white racial heritage (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham
University, 1991). Dissertation
Abstracts International. Vol. 52, 269-A
Kerwin,
C., and Ponterotto, J. (1995). Biracial Identity Development. In Ponterro, J., Cascas, J.M., Suzuki, L.A.,
and Alexander, C.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Counselling. (pp.
199-217), Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishers.
Krebs,
N.B. (1999) Edgwalkers. Utne Reader.
Sept/Oct, (pp 75-76)
Poston, W.S.C. (1990). The biracial identity development model: A
needed addition. Journal of Counseling and Development. Vol 69, (pp.
152-155)
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view
of psychotherapy. Boston, Massechusetts: Houghton Mifflin Co .
Steiner,
A. (1999). Birth of a mavin. Utne Reader. Sept/Oct (pp.77-78)
Stonequist,
E.V. (1937). The marginal man: A study in personality and culture conflict.
New York: Russell and Russell.