Negotiation of ethnic identity of second generation Taiwanese Americans in the U.S. and how this affects their assimilation

(1)

Master Thesis

MSc Contemporary Asian Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences

University of Amsterdam

Negotiation of Ethnic Identity of

Second Generation Taiwanese Americans in the U.S. and

How this Affects their Assimilation

Supervisor: Dr. Gladys Chong Second reader: Dr. Olga Sooudi

Student: Andi Ling (Soon Yen) Student No: 10513787

Email: andi.ling@gmail.com

Date: 25th June 2014 Word count: 24,930

(2)

1) Background & Methodology

1.1) Introduction

How immigrants assimilate after settling down in the host country is an important subject affecting issues such as government immigration policies and anxiety by citizens over immigrants’ adaptation, acculturation and assimilation. Immigrants may bring with them a different culture, values and way of living. Thus, if they do not assimilate to the majority way of living there may be a clash in values with locals. Misunderstandings from both parties, feelings of nonbelonging by the immigrant (the minority) brought on by actions or neglect from the locals (the majority) may cause racism issues and a nation in disharmony. Another fear is the possible dilution to the ethnicity of the locals. This is because "immigration is a major engine of new ethnic group production as today’s immigrant groups become tomorrow's ethnic groups" (Hein, 1994). Dilution in national ethnicity proportion may bring about fears for locals of loss of national identity (even if imagined), loss of power enjoyed by holding a majority status and loss of control in resources such as human capital, social capital and economic capital. To maintain power and avoid a nation in disharmony, governments when implementing immigration policies should consider the above issues to decide on their most apt approach.

1.2) Research problem

In the U.S., past experience has been based on the classical assimilationist view: immigrants shed their culture and values and eventually assimilate into the host country's socio-economic institutions and dominant culture (Zhou, 2014). Even those immigrants that were considered inferior races, such as Irish, Italian and Jews, have assimilated into mainstream America and become indistinguishably 'white' in contemporary America, which suggests that today's immigrants will follow the same path (Alba and Nee, 2003; Lieberson and Waters, 1988). However, current research shows that the process of assimilation has been more complicated and that there have been persistent ethnic differences across generations. This ethnic difference, in the post-civil rights movement era, has caused some immigrant groups and their offspring to do well and enjoy upward mobility in socio-economic status while other groups to suffer from stagnation or downward mobility (Kasinitz et al, 2008; Telles and Ortiz, 2008). An alternative to classical assimilation theory has been offered, that which is segmented assimilation theory (Portes and Zhou, 1993) to explain the above divergent outcomes. Instead of expecting all migrants to assimilate into the white American middle-class, there are

(4)

different outcomes with divergent paths. Explanation is also provided for why some ethnic groups fare better than others. Since this research is studying Taiwanese Americans, I thought assimilation to be an appropriate measure, and in particular segmented assimilation instead of others such as integration, since I want to find out whether their ethnic identity helps with their assimilation as a second generation in the U.S.

The next step is issues of identity since whether they are assimilated or not affects their feelings of belongingness as a second generation American in the host country and thus their identity. As talked about above, if they cannot become 'indistinguishably white' can they assimilate fully and are they then clear about their identity as an American or do they have to include an ethnic one. We cannot assume that today's second generation can choose whatever identity they wish and that it would be accepted by others (Lee, 2005). The American identity is accepted generally to be White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Ibid.; Zhou & Lee, 2007). The problem is composed of a phenotypical nature that prevents Asian Americans, and thus Taiwanese Americans, from being accepted as just American even if they have lost their Taiwanese cultural traits. Instead they have to adopt different identities, such as "ethnic, hyphenated American, American, pan-ethnic, regional, or multiracial, which need not be mutually exclusive" (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001:153). This research is interested in the social identity of Taiwanese Americans and how they negotiate their identity in response to the dominant American culture and also to the ethnic community they are perceived to belong to by the dominant society. This is related to role-behavior, and how one learns social roles through their everyday experiences in the society (Hiller & Chow, 2005; McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker, 1985). Therefore, this is how a Taiwanese American learns how to act through daily experiences, while residing in the U.S., when they are surrounded by the dominant society (public sphere) or when they are within their ethnic community (private sphere).

1.3) Research population

With the 2010 U.S. Census1 showing the Asian American population growing by over 45% from the year 2000, this group of people provides a relevant field to study from. Additionally, with reference to assimilation issues, there has been reports2 of Asian Americans forming

1

The 2010 United States Census (also known as Census 2010) is the most recent decennial census, mandated by the United States Constitution, that was carried out (www.census.gov/2010census).

2

Logan, J. R. & Zhang, W. (2013). Report on Separate but equal: Asian nationalities in the U.S. Peer-reviewed by the Advisory Board of the US2010 Project. Retrieved from

(5)

enclaves or communities in the U.S. and that they are as segregated from the whites as two decades ago. Therefore, this research attempts to explore these issues in relation to Asian Americans and in particular on second generation Taiwanese Americans and how they negotiate their identity in their native country, the U.S. For the second generation, I used the definition as those that were born in the U.S., or those that received their pre-post-secondary education in the U.S. (Hiller and Chow, 2005) which is generally from the age of twelve (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001), and have immigrant parents that were foreign-born (in this case Taiwan or have Taiwanese nationality by holding Taiwanese passports). The second generation are focused on due to likely maintenance of Chinese language ability with migrant parents and this generation is known as the transitional generation (Zhou and Xiong, 2007:1121). Another definition of second generation is that they are the offspring of immigrants born in the U.S. while those that moved to the U.S. at a young age are termed as "1.5 generation" instead (Zhou, 1997:65). I used 'second generation' as a blanket term with the above afore-given definition for purposes of simplicity and clarity.

1.4) Personal motivation

My personal motivation was inspired by and relates to Ien Ang's experience in (2001) On Not

Speaking Chinese, Living Between Asia and the West. I believe that identity is fluid and

shifting depending on who one is with (Zhou & Lee, 2007). I would like to use a personal experience to illustrate this. I grew up mainly in Singapore and was educated at an international school there. In school I was taught entirely in English, by Caucasian teachers that made up about 90% of the teaching faculty and with Caucasian classmates that made up about 70% of the student population, and at home only Chinese was spoken. At some point in my childhood, the level of my English superseded that of my Chinese and became the native language I associated with. For University, I went to England to study. The American accent I had did not sit well with the locals there. I was often asked by locals if I went there to learn or improve on my English and was often told I did not speak English well, which was due to my having an American accent. This did irk me since English was my main language-use and thus, after some time spent there, I was able to simulate the English accent in my spoken English. I used this in situations I thought beneficial to feel accepted and thus gain social capital as a local would, or to avoid being asked questions such as was I there to learn English. After graduating, I felt the need to go to Taiwan to improve on my Chinese so that I

(6)

could be a more 'authentic'3 Taiwanese (I am half Taiwanese and Malaysian Chinese) because I was expected to by people (whether Caucasian or Chinese) due to the way I looked4. I have touched on several issues here, mentioned in 'Introduction (1.1)', such as feelings of belonging, social capital and social identity. I believe my experience could easily apply to Taiwanese Americans and their identity negotiation through language-use in the U.S.

1.5) Research goal

This research attempts to find out whether Taiwanese Americans do indeed have to adopt different identities, particularly an ethnic Taiwanese identity, due to not being accepted by others as just 'American'. The research attempts to do this through the use of language, specifically the retention of ethnic Taiwanese identity via proficiency in Mandarin Chinese. For later generations, proficiency in the language may well have been lost due to assimilation and English becoming the primary language (Tsuda, 2012). Hiller and Chow found that "speaking Chinese strengthens home ties and provides oral familiarity with others in the Chinese community" (2005:89). Also that proficiency in Chinese, at least spoken and not written ability, seemed to be the strongest behavioral indicator of belonging to that community. Therefore, this research will use language as a marker of identity negotiation of Taiwanese Americans in the U.S.

1.6) Research questions

1. How do second generation Taiwanese Americans negotiate their identity, through language-use, in the face of the dominant American society?

2. Are they forced to include an ethnic identity because they are not accepted as simply American due to their skin color not being white?

3. How does having an ethnic identity affect their assimilation in the U.S.?

1.7) Research setting

Houston, Texas, is the third largest enclave for a city in the U.S. where Taiwanese Americans reside, after Monterey Park in California and Flushing in New York. There are also high concentrations in areas with a large number of high-tech firms coupled with good school districts such as Cupertino, San Jose, and Richardson, Texas. Richardson, Texas, in the

3

For more on Chinese authenticity issues, see Ang (2013), Ong (1999), and Nyiri (2001).

4

This can be related to Ang's experience where she is seen as a Chinese due to her facial features being Chinese even though she does not want to be Chinese (1993:8).

(7)

greater Dallas area is where I will be focusing this research on. There is a high concentration of Taiwanese Americans there likely due to a large number of telecommunication firms in the area, with the nickname of the 'Telecom Corridor', as well as housing The University of Texas at Dallas that attracts a strong talent of students.

Richardson and more recently Plano has been the main settlement area for the Chinese community in the Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) metroplex area (or the Metroplex as known by locals). The Chinese community includes first and second generation immigrants from mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau according to the definition set by the U.S. Census Bureau5. The 2012 Census estimates 3,274 Chinese Americans residing in Richardson and 13,592 in Plano. Richardson is north of the Dallas downtown area and was the old hub of the Chinese community. Plano is north of Richardson, further from downtown Dallas and is a newer settlement area that has grown in the last ten years. Plano and Richardson have often been voted as best places to live6 or places with the best schools7 with Plano ahead of Richardson. Richardson still houses the Chinatown of the Metroplex, which is just a small (twenty to thirty lots) commercial strip of Asian-based shops, restaurants and banks. However, the Chinese hub has slowly been moving north to Plano with the main Chinese supermarket (Jusgo

with picture on the right) moving there recently coupled

with notable

Chinese eateries8, in addition to H-Mart, the main Korean supermarket. Image 1: Jusgo Supermarket 5 www.census.gov 6 CNNMoney http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/top100/index.html 7 Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/2012/05/20/america-s-best-high-schools.html 8

"The Best Chinese Probably Isn't in Chinatown" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/Menuism/best-chinese-restaurants_b_2194073.html

(8)

1.8) Fieldwork

Fieldwork was carried out from January 9th to March 29th, 2014, in Richardson, Texas. The focus was on Taiwanese Americans that all attend the same Taiwanese-American church in Richardson. The church does not categorize itself under any Christian denomination, but for our purposes of understanding, it is considered as Protestant. Their founding father was a Chinese national, establishing the church in the 1920s. To escape government persecution for religious practices in China, the founding members decided to expand the religion in Taiwan to preserve the church and its practices. Thereafter, it spread to Europe in the 1950s and to the U.S. in the 1960s. The church was chosen because it provided the basis of the ethnic community of the sample. Most churchgoers consisted of first generation immigrant parents from Taiwan and their second generation children. The church holds meetings in both English and Chinese with generally the second generation attending the former and the first generation the latter. At first, I was not going to base the entire sample from this church population because I thought religion would play a factor in this research, of which it is not the focus. However, after initial assessment in the field I felt it did not pose a problem as the church was the common denominator among participants and constituted as the private sphere. In fact, the church was a good opportunity for many observations in a fixed setting while other appointments were made outside of the church. It was also applicable as language-use was the initial basis to go into identity of participants. Thus, that the church meetings are divided into English and Chinese groups also provided opportune comparisons. Additionally, the church is the ethnic network that provides strong ties for participants to their ethnic community and thus provides the backdrop for this research to see if it assisted or hindered participants’ assimilation in the U.S. (Zhou, 2006; Zhou, 2014). Interesting data was found, which are presented in chapters 3.1 to 3.2. Below is a list and overview of the main participants in this research.

Table 1: List and overview of main participants

Respondent Age Sex Education

Student

or Both parents

Born in

US Age when Three-generation

(primary) level working from Taiwan or Taiwan moved to US household *

Aaron 22 m in college S Y Taiwan 12 No but other relatives

Amanda 25 f Bachelor W mum (dad: HK) US n.a. No

Vivian 19 f in college S dad (mum: SH) US n.a. No

Albie 25 m Bachelor W Y US n.a. No but other relatives

Marisa 23 f in college S Y Taiwan 10 No but other relatives

Trip 19 m in college S Y US n.a. Yes

Anna 31 f Bachelor W Y US 4 Yes and other relatives

Daniel 27 m in college (p/t) W + p/t S mum (dad: M'sia) foreign 12 No

* 'Three-generation household' denotes that there are three generations living under the same roof; 'other relatives' in the column means that they do not live under the same roof but in the same city.

(9)

1.9) Problems encountered in the field

Overall, there were not too many practical problems encountered. Using the church as a base was a blessing in disguise because it was often the source to other contacts and appointments made. It was beneficial that I attended the meetings regularly not only for me to get to know participants, but also for them to get used to me being there naturally instead of me being there purely as a researcher. It was also helpful for me to get to know the environment and provided chances for me to set appointments with participants for the week and hear about events I could get involved in. However, the limitation of using the church as a base is also the reason I did not want to use it in the first place, the religion factor. It could be that the results could be skewed in certain areas of this research. One example is dating choice. Some church members, or their parents, have indicated that they prefer to find a partner who is also a Christian or even from the same church affiliation. Therefore if this church is mainly attended by Asian Americans only, it could be difficult for some second generation attendees to find a partner that is other than Asian American. Since ethnicity plays a big part in the research, and not others such as dating choice, I felt this limitation to not have a big impact on the main focus. Therefore, I did not go beyond the church for my sample.

One problem I encountered was during my first few days in the field. I received some reaction from first generations that were worried they were not eligible for the research since they were not born in Taiwan. I then realized that saying 'Taiwanese Americans' in Chinese and in English had different connotations. For the research and clarity purposes, I had to state the study was on Taiwanese Americans, instead of Chinese Americans, to differentiate between those immigrants to the U.S. from mainland China and those from Taiwan. History plays an important part here particularly the history in Taiwan dating from 1949 when the Kuomintang9 (KMT) party fled to Taiwan. This has since created Taiwanese nationals differentiating themselves as waishengren, those that descended from Chinese migrants to Taiwan in 1949 with the KMT, and benshengren, those that descended from Chinese migrants to Taiwan prior to 1949 and therefore not associated with the KMT (Chun, 1996:132). Firstly, some participants’ parents were not born in Taiwan, but most moved there at a young age (below five years of age and thus also fitting the general definition of second generation provided above), and they hold Taiwanese passports. Secondly, saying 'Taiwanese Americans'

9

The Kuomintang (KMT) is the Chinese Nationalist Party and is the ruling political party in Taiwan R.O.C. The KMT was led by Chiang Kai Shek when they retreated to Taiwan after being defeated by the Chinese Communist Party.

(10)

in Chinese generally means benshengren. Therefore, I had to carefully explain that I was not just looking for second generation Americans of benshengren immigrants. Additionally, most of my participants and their first generation parents hold passports both from the U.S. and Taiwan since both countries allow dual nationality.

Other problems encountered were of a practical nature such as when interviewing, some participants became tense and answered what they thought I wanted to hear when I was recording. After I stopped recording, their responses were more interesting and sometimes yielded more useful information. With this method, my memory powers were tested as I also wanted to seem natural so they felt comfortable without me scribbling notes down furiously as if trying to get out of them as much as I could. Another problem is that qualitative data, as opposed to quantitative data, can be interpreted inaccurately. How can I be sure that what a participant says is what he means? An example of this is when a foreign born participant said he has a lot of Caucasian friends, but when he spoke to one I could see he was not comfortable. How can I be sure he was uncomfortable conversing with the Caucasian? I cannot be entirely sure, but through triangulation of different methods, such as interviews combined with observations I saw that my deduction is likely correct and that he acted differently and was more at ease when with his Asian friends.

A final concern to mention is my position in the field. On the one hand, being ethnically Chinese (half Taiwanese and Malaysian Chinese) is beneficial since I could easily blend in with participants. However, on the other hand, if I was not Chinese or Taiwanese or Asian, I might see things differently from an outsider’s point of view. Sometimes, being an outsider is useful because they can feign ignorance and ask questions about Asian culture that an Asian is assumed to know and try to get the respondent to explain more. There were times, I felt I understood rapidly what the respondents were talking about before elaborating further because of my similar experience as an Asian in the West. However, to stay objective in the field and not let my personal experience take over the data I constantly had to remind myself to be aware of this fact and to always listen and respond to the data found, to not jump to any conclusions and to always be reflexive. Data found combined with literature written on this subject was helpful in reaching a conclusion based on evidence found in this research. In the end, I still felt my position as a possible member of the in-group helped in me getting access to data from respondents and an understanding of the environment that otherwise might not have been readily available to an outsider.

(11)

2) Theoretical Framework

This chapter introduces and explains the theories that are relevant to this research with the main topics being assimilation, identity, belongingness and hybridity.

Assimilation issues

Prior to Portes and Zhou's 1993 piece on alternative modes of assimilation of second generation immigrants, existing literature on assimilation in the U.S. was based only on the experience of pre-World War I immigrants from Europe and which was mainly straight-line assimilation. This is where the second generation was the transitional generation, of immigrant parents, and that the third generation would have largely adapted fully to U.S. norms and values with little traces of their grandparents culture. This mode of assimilation lacked any phenotype issues only that some may be naturally more tanned or darker than the others but still all fair-skinned, 'white' in colloquial terms, and currently termed "Caucasian" under the U.S. Census. Besides the experience and explanation being outdated, this mode is not sufficient to explain contemporary experiences of the "new second generation" (Zhou, 2014:1173) that are subject to a different social and cultural environment, economic conditions, and thus adaptation experience. What Portes and Zhou found in 1993 was an alternative mode of assimilation, which was segmented, that could apply to today's second generation of immigrants post-1965 (Hiller and Chow, 2005; Rumbaut, 2008; Zhou and Bankston, 1998; Zhou, 2014; for Europe see Vermeulen, 2010).

In 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act (Immigration Act) was passed becoming a significant turning point for the face of America. Prior to that, from 1921 to 1965, the U.S. had a national origins quota (National Origins Formula) that aimed to maintain the ethnic proportion present in the country. This favored western and northern Europeans over those from southern and eastern parts, and also excluded Asians, Latin Americans and Africans from naturalization. Since 1965, there has been in influx of immigrants from the latter three regions. In 1940 over 85% of children of immigrants were born to Europeans, or Hispanic whites in current terminology. This figure in 1960-65 was about 77% to non-Europeans (Portes and Zhou, 1993: 77). Research originally focused on the first generation of immigrants after 1965. After that, as the first generation settled down and started to have families, attention was turned towards the second generation, children of the first generation immigrants that had become significant in number. By late 1980s, a study estimated 3 to 5

(12)

million children in kindergarten and up to twelfth grade of American schools spoke a language other than English at home (Ibid., 76). The study of the second generation became important, as their experiences were different to those of their immigrant parents.

Today's nonwhite voluntary immigrants to the U.S. since 1965 have different modes of incorporation into mainstream society, since the Europeans prior to that, because they are defined racially by other Americans (Waters, 1994). Waters found that second generation West Indian and Haitian Americans in New York City had to adopt an ethnic identity to avoid being seen as only black (1994). This was a problem because they were stereotyped by whites in a negative way that limited their social mobility. This meant that they were automatically relegated to a class and socio-economic status that did not correspond to their situation. Clinging to an ethnic identity was a way to "hedge against one's racial identity" and to "reinforce the image in the minds of whites that the 'island people' are 'good blacks'" (Waters, 1994:817-818). Other second generation immigrant ethnicities have been studied in comparison with each other (Farley and Alba, 2002; Kronenberg, 2008; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Rumbaut, 2008) because despite low diversity in their class origins they fall into the most and least educated groups in the U.S. In general, the majority of second generation immigrants from parentage of Mexican, Salvadoran and Guatemalans had high school or less education, while Filipinos, Chinese, Koreans and Indians had college degrees or more and Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians had mixed and low human capital due to their parents being admitted on refugee status (Rumbaut, 2008:206). Since Taiwanese Americans are an understudied subgroup within the Asian American community in the U.S., this research hopes to fill this gap by focusing on Taiwanese Americans to also see if they have similar assimilation experiences as the other ethnic groups in the U.S.

Social and economic progress race

The first generation immigrants were generally more willing and often took entry-level menial jobs. Unless they entered as skilled migrants, which were in the minority, most lacked the social capital, such as level of English and local education, to find jobs other than the entry-level ones. However, the second generation that were born in the U.S. were less willing to do so, since they had more social capital compared to their parents at the time when entering the job market. Also, the second generation were born and raised in the U.S. with the thought that they were American and thus did not think they should have limited choices of having entry-level jobs as foreigners do (Zhou and Xiong, 2007). This causes a race of social

(13)

and economic progress between the children and their parents. This research did find this to apply to the sample. Most, about 70%, of the parents of respondents migrated to U.S. without college education, high school at most, and went to the U.S. and stayed there as undocumented workers to earn more than they would have if they had stayed in Taiwan instead. They were in search for a better life, higher pay and the "American dream". Therefore, most of them found jobs in the Chinese restaurant industry or other entry-level jobs and were willing to work hard to make a living in the U.S. as undocumented workers rather than return to Taiwan for better jobs but lower pay. However, all of them have since gained U.S. citizenship due to Reagan's amnesty for illegal immigrants with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This Act legalized illegal immigrants who had entered the U.S. before January 1st, 1982 and resided there continuously. Although they became documented, they mostly stayed in the low-income bracket and worked in Chinese restaurants as dishwashers, kitchen and wait staff and the like. Only very few from this group experienced upward social mobility. About 25% of parents came to settle in Dallas due to themselves studying there or elsewhere in the U.S. for college and thereafter staying in the U.S. For this group, they were able to find degree-required jobs and were mostly in the education industry or working in laboratories as scientists where spoken English was not the main part of their job such as a salesperson would be. The remaining 5% is a case where the parents migrated to Dallas as business-owners for purposes of expanding their business.

The second generation are generally expected to have progressed socially and economically compared to their parents (Portes and Zhou, 1993). Socially, the second generation can usually achieve this being educated in American schools, integrated with their peers that are not just from migrant parents, and having native level in English. All the second generation of my sample are now in similar socio-economic levels with almost all having completed college education or at least attended some college. Most participants have middle-income office jobs while a few have been stuck in lower levels such as one working at a low-end chain-store eatery. This adheres to research that regardless of socio-economic status of the immigrant family, their children tend to fare well and thus are more assimilated (than other ethnic groups on a structural level) due to support from their ethnic community (Kasinitz et al., 2008; Louie, 2004; Zhou, 2014).

(14)

Segmented assimilation

A review of the assimilation patterns of the second generation has been called for since there may be different modes of acculturation and that assimilation cannot be represented by upward socioeconomic mobility alone (Hiller and Chow, 2005; Zhou, 2014). Contemporary integration has to take into account phenotypic differences, deindustrialization and economic restructuring of the U.S., and domicile locale of the second generation all of which has caused the absence of previously available mobility ladders (Portes and Zhou, 1993). There are three types of assimilation. The first type is straight-line assimilation, which is that for some second generation it is possible to integrate into the white middle class. The second type is when acculturation stagnates or they experience downward mobility into marginal segments or remain in poverty. An example of this when the second generation get involved in gang related activities. The third option is to assimilate in a segmented way, or "selective Americanization", where it is backed by ethnic preservation and able to achieve rapid economic progress (Zhou and Bankston, 1998; Zhou, 2014).

Segmented assimilation theory has been said to be more applicable to multicultural societies (Hiller and Chow, 2005:77) such as the U.S. as the end result is not necessarily to assimilate to the dominant society. This is due to the dominant society not accepting other ethnicities besides whites as real Americans (Kim, 2007; Zhou, 2014). Thus causing the preservation of ethnic cultures to be forced onto the second generation due to prejudice and a response to their low status or to reap economic benefits from their social enclave (Neckerman, Carter and Lee, 1999). A structuralist approach places emphasis on the level of the immigrant's entrance into the host country, and ethnic preservation could assist in adaptation outcomes garnering increased mobility for the second generation. "The ethnic community is conceptualized as a crucial site for immigrant incorporation" (Zhou, 2014:1177). The ethnic community provides ethnic resources with racial status and family socio-economic status embedded within the community (Zhou, 2014:1177). Thus ethnicity can be a form of social capital for the second generation and assimilation could be segmented so that the end result is not full integration into the dominant culture. Zhou found that in some instances the absence of the social capital of a strong ethnic community or family values caused "downward assimilation" or ghettoization, while in contrast the presence of one enabled improved self-esteem with better education achievements and aspirations (1997; 2014).

(15)

Identity rather than mobility

Older models of segmented assimilation theory is based on ethnic preservation as a form of social capital generating upward mobility for the second generation (Portes and Zhou, 1993; Zhou, 1997; Zhou and Bankston, 1998). The model that this research emphasizes on uses identity rather than mobility as an indicator of segmented assimilation (Hiller and Chow, 2005; Zhou, 2014). This theory has in common with older theories the connection between socio-economic status and assimilation. Using identity would take into account the phenotype issue that is absent in straight-line assimilation, where it was not an issue in the past when most migrants were from Europe, and segmented assimilation based on mobility. Race would be included in this theory since it affected the assimilation patterns for the masses of migrants from Asia after 1965. This contrasts with the symbolic ethnicity that the third generation European migrants might have retained as a nostalgic interest in their ethnic past and adhering to straight-line assimilation (Gans, 1979:205). However, for contemporary immigrants from Asia race continues to be an unerasable marker where they may be prejudiced against with assumptions of "foreignness" (Kim, 2007; Tuan, 1999:18) even when they are second generation or later (Tsuda, 2013). Without the ease to "melt" into the American mainstream due to a phenotype issue (Zhou and Lee, 2007:198), race becomes a barrier to assimilation. Therefore, segmented assimilation occurs and identity is used as an indicator to incorporate the issue of race as a barrier. Additionally, instead of focusing on socio-economic mobility it is shifted to socio-cultural factors to ascertain how the second generation is shedding their distinctive ethnicity and culturally assimilating into the American mainstream.

Ethnic identity and negotiation

Ethnic identity formation is a dialectical process involving internal and external opinions where both what you perceive of yourself and what the outside world perceives of you ethnically matters (Nagel, 1994:154). It is also situational and can change depending on the audience and the location. Due to this an individual can carry a portfolio of ethnic identities and has the choice to select suitable ones for different situations. This produces what McBeth (1989 mentioned in Nagel, 1994:154) calls a "layering" of ethnic identities combining the ascriptive nature of ethnicity and revealing the need for a negotiation of identity, which is applicable to the second generation under study. Ethnic identity is ascriptive as it is constructed by the individual and group and also as a reaction to outside groups. Thus, individual identity needs to be negotiated because the individual has to decide which role he

(16)

wants to enforce in what situation. Here is a participant Daniel negotiating his identity when in different situations.

It definitely depends on who I’m with and I’m pretty good at, how do you say, for example I’m pretty good at adapting to cultures. So say like when I go back to Taiwan and I hang out with my old Taiwan friends, I’m pretty good at sort of acting local you know and you can say catching up quick on their slang or whatever it is. And then when I go to Malaysia it’s a whole different culture again, different accent, different way of speaking and I can sort of put it on. So in that sense it helps me feel more local and feel more not so foreign to my own country. Then when I’m in America, then again I speak and act in a different way.

Above we see how an individual can carry a portfolio of ethnic identities vis-à-vis various audiences, since identity is situational and flexible. Different identities are selected in different situations to illicit the desired response for the individual. For instance, Daniel also mentioned that acting ‘more American’ by having the right English accent and demeanor helps when looking for jobs in Dallas. I also observed a first generation Asian American acting differently and using local slang and jokes with the wait staff at a restaurant to garner some extra favors from the staff. These are masks they can put on, a presentation of the self to gain desired responses as a reaction to the society and cultural setting (Goffman, 1956). However, the mask does not hide their physical skin color wherein lies the problem of interpretation and presumptions made by the audience, and specifically other Americans.

Pan-ethnic identity

The negotiation of ethnic identity is particularly applicable to the study of second generation Taiwanese Americans since other Americans tend to identify them pan-ethnically as Asian. Therefore, the individual cannot just choose his identity but also what is available to him as decided by the group and society. Indeed Espiritu found that there was a layering of Asian American identity (1992). There would be a level of identification with the larger pan-ethnic Asian American group especially vis-á-vis non-Asians, and there would also be another layer especially vis-á-vis other Asians with reference to a more detailed national origin such as Taiwanese, Chinese, or Korean. Espiritu found that individuals chose from a selection of pan-ethnic and nationality-based identities based on strategic utility and symbolic appropriateness of the identities for different audiences and locations. However, there is no strategy when one is viewed as pan-ethnically Asian as it connotes a status of being foreign born (Zhou and Lee, 2007). Asian Americans are often treated as the 'racialized other' due to their skin color by other Americans rather than their actual situation (Zhou 2014:1181). Thus, some U.S.-born Asians find they have to constantly assert their native-born status (Ibid.). Kibria found a

(17)

pan-ethnic Asian identity among second generation Korean and Chinese Americans due to shared experiences and being labeled as pan-ethnic by the dominant society (1997). The shared experiences were those such as family values, to be hard working, similar child-rearing attitudes, and respect for elders. This caused a difference with that of the perceived mainstream Anglo-Saxon identity and affected matters such as friendship choice10. Therefore being lumped together in a group and being labeled as having a pan-ethnic Asian identity can cause the necessity for the second generation to negotiate their identity. Their self-identity is an aspect of their socio-cultural integration with the American mainstream and affects their sense of belonging in the host country, the U.S.

ABC or fob?

One way that the in-group (among Asian Americans) perpetuates the discrimination made by the dominant white society with the pan-ethnic identity is by differentiating between Asians born in the U.S. and those that arrived more recently or were not born in the U.S. Those Asians that were born in the U.S. (therefore from the second generation and up) are ABCs11 (American-born Chinese). If they are seen as too assimilated they may be called ‘whitewashed’ and if too ethnic they are called ‘fobs’ (Pyke and Dang, 2003:149). Fobs denotes "fresh off the boat" and is generally a derogatory term for Asians that were not born in the U.S. that exhibit foreign habits such as not being able to speak English at native level. Such negative traits are respondents' reactions to resist being racially excluded by whites and attempts to create a non-stigmatized identity at the middle of the acculturative spectrum of two cultures (Goffman, 1963). The spectrum is between the two cultures of the majority and minority, the U.S. and Taiwan in this case. In this research, I found that all participants knew of and used the terms "ABC" and "fob" and used it widely amongst themselves. In general, the ABCs did not find the term 'fob' derogatory. I believe this is because they were not the ones being called fobs and feeling like they did not belong. For those labeled as fobs, they gave slight indication of not enjoying this label but tried not to make a big deal about it. Or they gave off an air of indifference with one participant saying the only difference between ABCs and fobs is that ABCs were born here and fobs were not. However, upon discussing this with other participants this was clearly not the case. A few participants, especially among ABCs, said that there are different categories of fobs. These categories are generally the

10

See chapter 3.3 for Vivian's experience where these shared similarities in Asian values affected her social friendship choice.

11

This is similar to CBC, which is Canadian-born Chinese, in Canada (Hiller and Chow, 2005:83) and BBC, which is British-born Chinese, in Britain (Song, 2010:349).

(18)

degree of ethnicity corresponding with the foreign traits they present in their selves. Below is Amanda and Tanner’s first encounter with the term fob. They were born and grew up in the U.S. and attended a mostly white school.

We didn't really know what fobs were for a long time until we met a lot of kids that moved here maybe like in elementary school so that when they got here they didn't speak any English and they only spoke Chinese and people started referring to them as fobs because they didn't know English and they dressed different because they were from Asia. So then we're like oh, that's what a fob is. But before that we didn't know what they were.

They also said they came into contact with this term from the coethnics at church. Below is Marisa’s experience with the term. She moved to Dallas at the age of ten. She is labeled a fob by her coethnics with one American-born participant even claiming that "she is proud to be a fob". First, she defines fobs as,

a fob to them it’s like a really Asian person with all the cute stuff on their [mobile] phone and they do things like raise up a ‘peace’ sign when you take your picture.

This was not the first time I heard ‘the peace sign when taking a picture’ being described as part of the definition of a fob. She then labels another coethnic a fob as well. I saw this happen among other participants too. Then she relates to this label as below.

I don’t even know why we call people that but we just like to call people that. Every time we go bowling, Albie will be like "ok let's make an ABC team and a fob team". People just, they know what team they should go to and then I'll be like "yeah, we’re the fob team" cause I'm so loud.

Another clear distinction made between ABCs and fobs was the way they dressed. The fashion in Asia was perceived to be different than that in the U.S. and they could also identify a fob if they wore "fobby clothes". This was hard to pinpoint, but some examples given from respondents were that the colors fobs wore did not match, they wore fanny packs and 'Crocs' that were outdated in the U.S. Instead, what is popular now for footwear are 'Sperry Top-siders'. There were also fobs trying to look more local by wearing 'Abercrombie and Fitch' or showing American logos on their clothing. While ABCs tended to wear more simple plain colors and preferably small or without showing logos.

The only derogatory term I found with the participants with a label similar to 'whitewashed' above is "twinkie". Twinkies were those Asians that only mix with white people, as defined by participants. Twinkies are "white on the inside and yellow on the outside". Two respondents, Jimmy and Steven, said that in high school they had to make a choice between

(19)

being a twinkie or a fob. These were the two identities they had to make a choice from. Thus stigmatization did occur among coethnics so that participants were forced to make a choice in a limited way especially among the school-age group. However, the respondents said that the situation improved when they went to college and has more or less disappeared now that they are working. Another respondent, Trip, also confirmed this when he said that high school was the worst time regarding this situation because that is when you are most likely forced to have to choose a side. But now that he is in college, the situation has subsided.

Image 2: Twinkies

Note: Image by Larry D. Moore, used under a Creative Commons ShareAlike License12

Belongingness

Here we need to revisit assimilation and its difference with integration. Integration is where the minority has gained some of the cultural attributes of the majority society but still retain a cultural distinctiveness (Eriksen, 2010:298). This is the case of the Malaysian Chinese (those that are citizens in Malaysia) that still retain a strong communal identity and could be seen to apply to the Taiwanese Americans as we shall see later. There is also differentiation between acculturation and assimilation. Acculturation is when two cultural groups come into contact, and they influence each other to change by affecting each other (Ibid.). One example of this is the prevalence of the many different types of Asian food in Dallas that have been introduced by the immigrants. There are Korean, Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai and other cuisines available in Dallas and frequented by Americans of different ethnicities. Consider two participants’, Amanda and Tanner, experience. They said that some of their white American friends like to eat Chinese food and that there are Chinese restaurants that are frequented more by whites than Chinese Americans. They found it interesting that white

12

(20)

Americans eat Chinese food with wine, as if it is a very special meal. However, to them it is an everyday meal that they eat at home regularly although they said sometimes the Chinese meal at home is a "fusion of Americanized Chinese food". I also observed this when I was at another participant’s house for dinner. The meal consisted of Chinese pork and sweet corn broth, rice, stir-fried vegetables but paired with barbecue ribs and seared beef. Therefore, some acculturation with regards to food has occurred both ways. Assimilation on the other hand is when the culture of the immigrant or minority ethnic group becomes more like that of the majority. In the U.S., the mainstream American culture that Asian Americans assimilate to is considered the white American culture (Huang and Ying, 1991).

Assimilation includes a further step from integration whereby there is a change of ethnic identification (Tan, 2011) so that for example the Chinese become Malays and no longer see themselves as Chinese. However, for this to occur requires out-group acceptance. Thus for the Taiwanese Americans residing in Dallas, perhaps they may regard themselves as American rather than Chinese having assimilated. This would not take effect unless the outside group also accepted them as American. However, people often decide on a person's race depending on skin color and facial features. This is further exacerbated in societies with strong racial consciousness, such as the U.S., which is further driven by power asymmetries such as in terms of symbolic and economic capital. Ien Ang discusses this issue of imposed identity whereby she is still seen as a Chinese due to her facial features being Chinese even though she does not want to be Chinese (1993:8). This could easily apply to the Taiwanese Americans being studied, and thus, instead of being able to assimilate fully they are forced to retain some measure of their ethnicity to identify themselves that helps in their feeling of belongingness in the host country.

Racial hierarchy

With the issue of belongingness in the host country as a minority, such as for Asian Americans, comes the issue of racial hierarchy. Racial hierarchy is the ranking or stratification by race. This is known to exist in the U.S. due to its history with slavery. There is no one definition of the racial hierarchy in the U.S, however the general one is that "economically, politically and socially, whites are indisputably at the top, black people at the bottom, and the 'colored' population comprising a formal intermediate category" (Spickard, 1989). Asian Americans have been suggested by various analysts to be somewhere between the blacks at the bottom and the whites at the top occupying an intermediate space (Kibria,

(21)

1997; Tuan, 1999). Analyst Claire Jean Kim (1999) argues that Asian Americans have been ‘racially triangulated’ in relation to white and black Americans. Whites have compared them to blacks, on cultural and racial grounds, to be more superior so that they can disclaim the legitimate grievances made by black Americans. An example of this is the model minority stereotype that pressurizes Asian Americans to place themselves in this higher standard and not the mainstream average. On the other hand, whites construct Asian Americans as alien and unassimilable by engaging in civic ostracism such as phenotype as an unerasable marker. By doing this, whites can maintain their prime position in society.

Asian Americans may be culturally assimilated in the U.S., having lost the cultural traits of their ethnicity, but phenotype being a strong marker among the white American majority places Asian Americans as foreigners. One way they are made to feel like perpetual foreigners, even when culturally they are American such as speaking English without an accent, dressing and behaving like their peers, is to be asked “where are you really from?” (Tuan, 1999). However, in this research, participants were not often asked this question and also were not made to feel like foreigners in the U.S. likely due to them being able to speak English eloquently with a local American accent. Though, instead some of them were asked where their parents were from. Thus, this question still implies their roots being from elsewhere and since the participants were second generation, they did not feel offended since their parents were not born in the U.S. However, if they were third generation or above participants’ reactions may have been different as seen in Tsuda’s findings (2012).

Hybridity

Besides out-group acceptance, there may be not be in-group acceptance as well such as the later Chinese migrants looking down on the localized Chinese in North America (Tan, 2011:25). This can be categorized as seen by Aihwa Ong to be the previous academic studies of Chineseness that was solely defined in relation the motherland, China (1999:24). Minorities living in host countries are seen to be less culturally "authentic" Chinese. However, she argues that contemporary Chineseness should include transnational processes with a growing pluralization of Chinese identities. A question of hybridity and is more akin to the cultural 'shopping cart', which is the construction of ethnic culture "by picking and choosing items from the shelves of the past and the present" (Nagel, 1994:162). Consider the participant Anna, who has two young children, and said that she will teach aspects of Taiwanese culture that "she likes" to her children.

(22)

They’re gonna grow up internationally; my husband is Mexican. We didn’t grow up in a Chinese culture. For example, on Chinese New Year they don’t even get hong bao13. We never did stuff like that. I guess its stuff that my family did, as far as anything I know, that is Taiwanese I would like to bring my kids into. You know, the things I enjoy like the culture, the food, teaching them the language, teaching fun little phrases in Hakka or Taiwanese, whatever I know and I want to have them connected with that so they can connect with their parents. Plus you know my husband is doing the same, like talking to them in Spanish, and then we live here in the U.S.

In this respect, she is imparting knowledge of her heritage selectively to her liking to her children to help them know where they came from. Thus, instead of an ethnic culture that comes to us in a cart already pre-loaded with cultural items, the cart is filled with items we select such as what the participant is doing here for her children. In this research I attempt to study Taiwanese Americans under Ang's term of hybridity where it is an in-between space that cultural change can occur (1993:2). Thus, in a pluralist society such as the U.S., there is more than one meaning of what being an American is and that it should include the cultural hybrid identity of Taiwanese Americans.

13

'Hong bao' is literally 'red packet' in Chinese and is traditionally given to children by parents and relatives of one generation and up during the Chinese New Year.

(23)

3) Findings & Analysis

3.1) Identity based on language-use Introduction

As mentioned in the 'Research goal (1.5)' that since discovering someone's identity is not a straightforward task, this research utilized language-use as an initial basis to delve into identity issues related to their assimilation. Language-use and particularly bilingualism of second generation children has been of interest to nativists in the U.S (Curran, 1966). There have been nativistic concerns that with the large influx of immigrants to the U.S., especially since 1965, resulting in significant migrant enclaves, such as the Spanish speaking population in south Florida, that the retention of the foreign language they bring with them would retard the shift to monolingualism in two or three generations preferred by nativists (Portes and Schauffer, 1994). The fear is that these language enclaves would hinder or slow down the assimilation process of the migrants and their future generations with the prolonged ethnic language retention and loyalty to the language from their country of origin. In the past, almost all of the second generations had overwhelmingly switched to English as their main language of preference rather than their ancestral language (Liberson, Dalto and Johnston, 1975). With contemporary migrants now originating from areas other than Europe, such as Latin American and Asia, and about half being phenotypically nonwhite (Portes and Zhou, 1993), the concern is the changing pattern of the second generation. The change would be a slowing down in the assimilation process due to a delay to monolingualism and less preference for English as the main language of the second generation. Monolingualism was encouraged in the beginnings of the nation as it was linked with the idea of democracy, solidarity and allegiance to the country as model citizens. Bilingualism among recent immigrants was frowned upon. This thus applies to the second generation of Taiwanese Americans being studied to see if they have been able to retain fluency in their parent’s foreign language and whether this affects their assimilation in the U.S.

Language can also be a matter determined by such identity formation processes, and particularly the maintenance of ethnic language. In the past, expectations were that the first generation knew enough English to survive in the U.S, the second generation was native in the level of English and spoke their ethnic language at home, while the third generation lost their capability in the ethnic language completely with English as their mother tongue. This is the pattern of straight-line assimilation for language (Alba, 2006). However, not all ethnic

(24)

groups of immigrants follow the same pattern in the U.S. For Laotian immigrants, the second generation did not fully assimilate to English-use only but gradually by generation (Chanethom, 2010). Portes and Schauffler (1994) found that the shift toward English monolingualism was faster for Asians when compared to Latinos. Across immigrant generations, Lopez (1982) found the shift from mother tongue to English was slower for Latinos compared to European groups with Mexican Americans having strongest retention of Spanish. For West Indians, Filipinos, Canadians and other nationalities where English is mainly spoken at home, the second generation mostly spoke English with their parents (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001). Below are two figures taken from Alba's 2004 paper showing children of different ethnicities in the U.S. and who only speak English and at home.

(25)

Another comparison is the language assimilation of immigrants in other countries. Khoo (1995) found that survival of the ethnic language depends mainly on the second generation. Tannenbaum and Howie (2010) found that the closer the second generation were to their parents, based on the family as a system, the more likely they were to retain their mother tongue. For this research, the second generation is studied and the church acts as the family system that they are maintaining close ties with. Second generation Bangladeshi immigrants in London predominantly used English in their daily lives, although not exclusively (Rasinger, 2012). We will see if this occurs in this research. It was found in U.S. and in France that children responded to parents in the dominant language even though they understood what their parents said to them in their mother tongue (Alba, 2006). I did find a participant, a second generation child of eight years old, doing this. Additionally, he used to speak only Chinese as a child, but now he only speaks English. This occurred a while after he started attending kindergarten.

"Losing a language is also losing part of one's self that is linked to one's identity and heritage" (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001:144). However, when acculturating to the host society there is demand that the second generation assimilates by way of language as well. This is due to its citizens being defined by a common language that is ingrained in American history and nationalism. Firstly, it was the notion that "American English both reflected and constituted the democratic and rational nature of the country" and secondly, "the acquisition and use of English was seen as the litmus test of citizenship" (Portes and Schauffler, 1994:642). Thus, assimilation by way of language is also important. Additionally, without native ability in

(26)

English in addition to the right local accent and vernacular, there may be social barriers to belonging and economic resources such as being able to find a job in the host country. Using the wrong vernacular could cause trouble such as the experience of Daniel, who is fluent in English, when he just arrived in Dallas and was in school. He needed an "eraser" and asked the teacher for a "rubber", which is the British English equivalent term that he was accustomed to. However, in the U.S. asking for a rubber is the same as asking for a condom. Since Daniel was a teenager, the teacher thought he was being rude and trying to be funny in class. Daniel had to elaborate he wanted to rub out his mistakes written in pencil, which did get him out of impending trouble. But we see how a simple difference in vernacular could cause embarrassing and trouble-causing situations. Speaking to Daniel today, who has resided in Texas for over ten years, you can hear he has the local accent and even acquired the 'Texas twang'. He says people are surprised to hear he is not born there because he speaks like a local. With his language ability, this may be one of the reasons he could get a job being a salesman at a prestigious automobile dealership working near downtown Dallas and not in an ethnic enclave for instance. Appropriate language ability opens the doors to more jobs in mainstream America and more social opportunities with less social awkwardness occurring.

Language-use of the sample: English and Mandarin Chinese

The main language-use among the second generation Taiwanese Americans is English and Mandarin Chinese. Fluency in English was expected for all participants in the sample since the definition I used for the second generation was that participants had to have moved to the U.S. and resided there since the age of 12. Also both parents had to be foreign born with at least one from Taiwan. Additionally, that they all were members of the same Taiwanese-American based church was used to indicate their cohesiveness and maintenance to their ethnic community. The other language to be fluent in for the bilingual nature of this research, is the one of the parents and also is the national language of Taiwan being Mandarin Chinese. Some participants did have some knowledge of Taiwanese, the local dialect in Taiwan, but this was minimal and did not affect their bilingual nature. Most participants had English as their primary language of fluency and varying levels of Mandarin Chinese, but none were found to be truly bilingual having fluency in both the languages. Of those that did not have English as their primary fluent language or were unsure, these only came from those respondents that were born in Taiwan and moved to the U.S. at 10-12 years of age. A summary is shown in the table below.

(27)

Table 2: Summary of language fluency of respondents

No. Respondent Born in US Fluency in Fluency in Other/Notes

or Taiwan English Chinese

1 Aaron Taiwan 4 5

2 Amanda US 5 2 Watches Chinese soaps with parents

3 Vivian US 5 0.5 Cannot converse in Chinese but understand a little

4 Albie US 5 3.5 Spent 1 year learning Chinese in Taiwan

5 Marisa Taiwan 4 5

6 Trip US 5 1 Wants to learn Chinese

7 Anna US 5 3 Speaks Chinese to children; can converse in Spanish

8 Daniel foreign 5 3 Can converse in Spanish and Malay also

9 Tanner US 5 2 Watches Chinese soaps with parents

10 Phillip US 5 1 Not interested in improving Chinese

11 Steven US 5 1

12 Jason US 5 1

13 Bingo Taiwan 4 5

14 Rachel US 5 2 Speaks Chinese to children

16 Tim US 5 2 Accurate Chinese pronunciation; poor vocabulary

Note: Fluency is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest.

Zhou and Bankston (1998) and Rumbaut (1994) found that ethnicity is not a label or a national origin, but a system of social relations. These include kinship, socialization and friendship networks that help determine the rapidness of assimilation. The authors found that second generation Asian Americans were likely to be bilingual than be monolingual in English. This was possible due to the ethnic language maintained at home and living near co-ethnics such as an Asian community with repeated migration waves. The above finding suggest that language-use is detrimental to ethnic identity and that strong social ties and repeated migration waves do promote the likelihood of an ethnic identity being adopted by the second generation.

The church population that sample originated from

For this sample, it was safe to use these two languages as the two main ones for bilingualism. One being English, which should be self-explanatory being the language of the host country, and the other being Mandarin Chinese since I found that most of the spoken languages at home with parents or grandparents were usually in Mandarin Chinese. Additionally, in the church, there were church services provided in two languages; English and Mandarin Chinese. In fact, most church activities had a clear segregation between the English- and Chinese-speaking groups (images below) such as that mentioned by Nagata (1988:130) whereby "language divides". Additionally, this division is synonymous with the divide found by Han (2013:107) between the Chinese- and English-speaking congregation to resemble that between immigrants and Americans in the society at large. Those attending the Sunday Chinese-speaking meeting was mostly older with the main ages being at least 40 years and

(28)

older. People younger than that only consisted a handful out of a total of 40-50 attendees of the weekly Sunday service. This group mostly comprised of the first generation, being the parents (and some grandparents) of the second generation that were mostly in their twenties. The meeting and materials used were entirely in Chinese. The English-speaking meeting, on the other hand, was in a different room. In fact, it was in the main hall of the church building, a much bigger room that could seat up to 200 people but the weekly Sunday meeting was attended by about 50-60 people. This weekly English-speaking meeting of the exact same service and readings assigned to the Chinese group was made up of mostly a younger group. The modal age falls in the twenties to thirties range. Most of the attendees were children of those that attended the Chinese meeting. Also the Chinese meeting seemed to have a fairly equal number of male and female attendees, while the English meeting had a higher proportion of males at a ratio of about 3:2 male to females. There did not seem to be an apparent reason for the difference in male to female ratio of the two groups and there is no expected norm of this ratio for church meetings.

Image 3: Chinese-speaking meeting

(29)

Out of the nine Sunday meetings I attended at the church, the Chinese group comprised exclusively of ethnically Chinese attendees with most from Taiwan and some from China. Of the English group, more diversity was reported although they were mainly ethnically Chinese and American except for about 10-15% comprising of foreign students or visitors. About 20% of the English group was not ethnically Chinese and in descending order were mostly Caucasian, Hispanic, and African-American. Most of the people in the English group had English as their primary language in terms of fluency. About 10-20% did not and were more fluent in Mandarin Chinese but were there to improve their English, or because of the age the group, or other reasons such as one mentioned below. A participant, Aaron aged 22 years, said he did not want to go to the Chinese meeting because all of his friends were in the English meeting even though he would have preferred attending the meeting in Chinese since he preferred Chinese as his main language-use.

Church plans of expanding network beyond its ethnicity

The church (image below) had a recent initiative to diversify the ethnicity of the attendees of its English meetings to include more specifically (and unofficially) Caucasians. Their reasoning behind this is that since the church's inception in 1993, the slight rise in number of attendees has only been mainly of Chinese ethnicity. They believe that they have difficulty attracting more Caucasian attendees due to their church building not having been updated or remodeled since 1993. Although the church building has a clean façade, is tidy and is functioning well, they have decided to tear down the building and erect a new and updated structure. Thus, also because of this new initiative to attract more Caucasians to attend the English service, those previously from the Chinese meeting that had some ability in English were encouraged to transfer to the English meetings instead. So for the nine meetings I had attended, I did observe some members of the English meeting that had originally been in the Chinese meeting and were not fluent in English. A few were parents of the second generation that were attending the same English meeting. Overall, we can generally conclude that this church seemed to serve the first generation Taiwanese-American migrants and their offspring since 1993. It has been 21 years in existence, and their offspring are mostly coming of age with some already graduated from college, married and in the workforce, while some are currently in college and a few in pre-college school age. Over the past twenty years, this community has stayed mostly within its ethnic network in terms of new church members. However, as is with most church's evangelistic goals, they aim to attract more members and particularly to expand its network ethnically. Perhaps one underlying reason is that they