Response for 11/10

How does the unprecedented movement of people challenge concepts of citizenship and identity? What are among C. Suarez-Orozco's chief concerns regarding immigrant students' identity formation?

The answer to the first question here is not really fully flushed out within this article. The idea of citizenship is only mentioned once, and then only in the title of one of the sections. Orozco doesn't really go into the affects of globalization on citizenship, except to talk about the formation of a global identity, which I guess you could link to growth as a global "citizen" but I personally think that is a stretch. In regards to identity though, that is what this article is all about! Concepts of identity have been challenged greatly. Identity has become a much more complex idea than before. A person no longer just identifies with the country in which they reside. Other factors have to be taken into consideration. Is this person an immigrant? If so, how does the life they led in their "home country" affect their identity in their new country? How much of the culture of thier new country helps to form their new identity? And this new complex form of identity does not just apply to immigrants. As our world continues to grow within globalization, even people who have lived their entire lives in one country as having to deal with this new growing force known as a "global identity." Where do we fit within the global community and how does that affect our identity? I do have to say, though, that immigrants definately have the most difficult time of forming identity because, in way, they are actually have to work from three different points of reference: their home country, their new country, and the world of globalization!

Orozco describes three different forms of identity that immigrants typically fall into. The first is the coethnic identity, in which the person completely denies the influences of the new, dominant culture they have moved into. This leads to rejection of the new culture and everything that comes with it, from language to social practices. This also usually leads to a decline in educational performance because being successful in school is seen as "trying to be white" and to the increased liklihood that these youth will join gangs. Orozco worries that this form of identity limits the future opportunities for youth who are already disadvantaged through poverty and discrimination.

The second form of identity is what Orozco calls "ethnic flight." It seems to be the exact opposite of the coethnic identity. Instead of rejecting the new dominant culture, immigrants embracing this form of identity actually begin to reject the culture and identity from their home country. They completely immerse themselves in the new culture and begin to reject the culture they experience in the home. This type of identity usually leads to a much higher likelyhood of academic success, as these students try everything they can to fit into their new culture. The problems with this form of identity though reside more in the emotional and social realms. These students are usually alienated from their ethnic peers and their family at home. This can lead to more severe emotional and social problems.

The final form of identity that Orozco describes is a combination of both of the previous ones. It is what Orozco refers to as "transcultural identity." These students embrace the new, dominant culture of the country they have immigrated to while still holding on to the cultural reminants of their home country. They combine what the know and what they are learning to create a new identity encompassing both. These students are more likely to be adademically successful, but also professionaly successful in our new "global" world. These students are much better prepared to deal with the world we live in and the demands to dealing with global business. As Orozco says, "this identity style not only serves the individual well but also benefits the society at large." (p 193)

My question is, what about the fourth form of identity that Orozco doesn't address....the when in which the student actually creates two seperate identities for themselve? Those students to are able to "switch" between the two cultures with ease and be accepted within both. I don't believe this is the same as the transcultural identity because the different cultures are not combined. When the student is with peers from his home country, he embraces the identity of his home country, but when he is at school, for instance, immersed in the dominant culture of his new home, he embraces that culture. What implications does this identity formation have one the future development of the student? Is he really forming an identity or is the jumping between cultures prohibiting him from becoming his own person?