| Chapter 2: | Asian American Identity: A Review |
These examples support the notion that ethnic-specific identities have real meaning for the individuals who have these labels placed on them. A central tenet of social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974) involves the idea of social categorization, that individuals make sense of the world by categorizing others into similar and dissimilar groups. Individuals who are primarily categorized into an ethnic-specific group may also begin to make meaning out of this identity (although it may have little or no social meaning in their home country) as it is an identity that unifies them from socially different others for whom an ethnic-specific identity is more central or important.
For instance, others often characterize many individuals of East Asian origin as “Chinese.” However, these individuals may be of Japanese, Korean, or Taiwanese descent and may see themselves as distinct from individuals of Chinese descent. The ethnic-specific designation is also socially constructed, as simply defining oneself as a member of a nation-state may be quite limiting for first-generation (immigrant) individuals who might see themselves in more specific terms such as religious or regional identifications (for a review, see Kurien, 1999, 2001). However, for individuals of the second (and subsequent) generation(s), identification with their country of origin might be strong, and a more nuanced type of identification with particular aspects of the home country (e.g., region, religion) may become less pronounced as these individuals have less direct contact with the home country.
In summary, whereas some scholars have failed to make a distinction between the concepts of race and racial identity, panethnicity, and ethnicity and ethnic-specific identity, they are notably distinct based on a number of factors. The concept of race has real social meaning, despite its’ fictitious biological basis.