Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity-Allie DeFries

Bringing it all together: Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity

                Throughout the semester, we have all commented on the limitations of each theory studied. One of the main criticisms of each theory is the limited scope of participants used to develop these theories, usually young white males. What struck me about the theory for this week is that it was created in response to these criticisms. “A growing recognition that some individuals or groups have been left out of the study of human development has resulted in new scholarship which pushes at the veneer of silence and utilizes the metaphor of voice to describe the experiences of those not previously heard in ways consistent with their numbers” (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 53). All semester I have made the comment that development is not a neat process and it seems like a lot of these theories or types of development can be happening simultaneously. I have finally found a model that I understand and that makes sense! Researchers finally saw a need to address the fact that the theories of identity development cannot be a one-size fits all model and that they are messier than the linear models we have read about all semester. The model of multiple dimensions of identity was developed because most models of identity development only look at one aspect of identity, when it seems important to recognize that people usually have many aspects of identity developing simultaneously.

            While reading for this week, I was finally able to “bring it all together”. I understood why I had such a hard time picking apart my personal identity and growth in my reflections of each identity theory, because they all intersect and work to make together to help my development process. One of the most important pieces of this reading, at least to me, was the fact that I was at the center. My personal attributes, characteristics and identity were at the core of all of the rest of my social identities and my context played a significant role in identifying my social identities as well as me personal identity. Seeing this model, which reminded me of an atom, it finally clicked that this whole identity development process was continuous, fluid and tangled. I cannot ever just be one of my social identities, but I can be more focused on one area of development at certain times in my life. Maybe one reason that this theory makes the most sense to me is that it is moored in three areas of scholarship, foundational student development theories, scholarship on underrepresented groups and socially constructed identities and intersections. By using information from three very different areas of research it is able to address the very complex idea of identity development in a way that seems simple to understand.

To better understand how this theory came into being, I read the research article by Susan Jones and Marylu McEwen (2000), A Conceptual Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity. This article broke down the research study they used to conceptualize this model and theory. Like any study though, it is bound to have limitations. One limitation that seems to find itself into every study is the sample. “The model evolved from a grounded theory study of a group of 10 women college students ranging in age from 20-24 and of diverse racial-ethnic backgrounds” (Jones & McEwen, 2000, p. 405). The study only looked at 10 women, all college aged. Just like our critiques of other theories this semester, the sample is homogenous in age and gender. How can it be generalizable? The authors of this particular study on multiple dimensions of identity do not address this limitation, but instead highlight the need for further research on this area. This is one aspect of theory development that I cannot seem to wrap my head around. How can a theory become a theory if the studies used to identify the patterns are limited in scope and generalizability?

After I finished the readings for this week, I tried to find something to add to this blog post that would contribute more to the conversation. I came across a TedTalk at the Youth of Manchester conference by Julian Baggini entitled, Is there a real you? This talk doesn’t completely relate to the readings, but I decided to share it because of one of the first things that Mr. Baggini says, “for each one of us there is a core or an essence that it means to be you”. His talk focuses on what it means to be “you” in the world and highlights some ways in which we see our identities being depicted in the media today, horoscopes and personality inventories. One of the things that he questions though is that our core isn’t actually a core, but instead it is the context. This resonated with me because how can understand our identities intersecting if we don’t give our core personal characteristics, experiences and attributes more of a stock in the process. His model shows the core overlapping all of the other aspects of personal development.  I am not sure if I fully buy into his idea, but I do think that our personal experiences and identity plays a larger role into how we determine which social identities are more salient than others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jny68mFF8k

References

Baggini, J. (Director) (2012, August 25). Is There a Real You?. Tedx. Lecture conducted from Youth at Manchester, Manchester.

Jones, S., & McEwen, M. (2000). A Conceptual Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity. Journal of College Student Developement, 41(4), 405-414.

Jones, S. R. & Abes, E. S. (2013). Chapter 3: Multiple social identities and intersecting identities. In Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity (pp. 53-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S. R. & Abes, E. S. (2013). Chapter 4: Model of multiple dimensions of identity. In Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity (pp. 77-96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S. R. & Abes, E. S. (2013). Chapter 5: Reconceptionalized model of multiple dimensions of identity. In Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity (pp. 97-121). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maite Villareal Rodriguez Blog Post

Over Spring Break I visited my parents in Atlanta.  One night we went shopping for my soon-to-be born niece or nephew.  We don’t actually know what the sex of the baby will be so my Mom, my Dad, my husband and I all stood in front of the onezies and debated what would be an appropriate selection.  The conversation went something like this -

“Can purple go both ways?”

“No, that’s still kinda girly.”

“This one has a tie painted on it but it’s pink, does that mean it’ll work for both boy or girl?”

“Well, could always go with yellow or just polka dots…”

After a few minutes of this dialogue about gendered fashion choices for a being that in reality will have no idea nor opinions or care as to what colors it may be sporting, my “i’m-in-grad-school-and-have-learned-a-bunch-of-stuff” mind came back to me and I said, “Wait, this is all a social construction anyways!”  My Dad said, “Oye mirala (wow, look at her) with the language.”  He was calling me out on my jargon in the middle of the gift store!  Essentially he was saying, you may be 31 and in a fancy grad school, but those words don’t impress us here, here you are our daughter.  While my parents would definitely be up a conversation about challenging social norms, my primary identity at home is as a daughter, not a student.  This moment crystallized for me an awareness that though conversations about identity development are important and I do hope to carry my learning beyond the classroom - context matters.  My parents are and have always been very supportive of my ambitions and have never restricted me to gender norms, yet my academic language is seen as presumptuous when I’m there as their daughter.

Jones & Abes (2013) offer a similar example of a woman who discusses how her identity is perceived differently based on context, “In the U.S. I would probably be called assertive, but kind of polite.  But back home I think they would call me just down right aggressive!” (p. 74).  Again, in regards to identity and development, context matters!  Who we are and how we carry ourselves has different impact which is largely predicated on environment.  

For this centering of interplay between context and identity I loved the model presented in this weeks reading: Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (MMID)(Jones & Abes, 2013).  MMID is illustrated through an “atom” where the nucleus represents an individual’s core identity, the revolving rings of electrons represent different social identities that are both in flux and at differing distances from the core, and the circle surrounding the atom represents context.  

The original study from which this model emerged was conducted in 1995 by Susan Jones (Jones & Abes, 2013).  The goal was to “understand the multiple dimensions of identity development among women college students” (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 64).  

There are several strengths to this model.  One, rather than zeroing in on one aspect of identity, it accounts for as many as one wants to look at and puts them in dynamic relationship with one another.   This is a unique approach since most of the models that we have looked at consider stages along one identity.  

Second, this model incorporates context such as “family background, socio-cultural conditions and current life experiences” (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 55).  Identity is described to have “relative salience” depending on the context (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 76).  

One of my favorite online blogs is NPR’s “Code Switch; Frontiers of Race, Culture and Ethnicity.”  In a recent post authors highlighted immigration activists who, in light of record high deportations, are calling Obama to greater action, saying “We want an emancipator, Not a Deporter In Chief.”  MMID is a helpful model when analyzing this issue.  While an individual’s ethnic identity and citizenship status both can be salient identities, given the current political context, citiizenship status becomes closer to the core.  

Third, I personally appreciated that this model presents a “core sense of self” which exists independent of social identities and context.  The model makes a distinction between personal identity and social identity (Jones & Abes, 2013. p. 82).  My belief is that each person does have a true and core self that exists apart from the influence of society.  This is the first model I have seen that has accounted for this possibility.  

Another aspect of this model that rings true for me is the concept of how privilege and oppression influence salience of identity.  Jones and Abes (2013) offer that the more privileged an identity, the less salient it is.  For instance, growing up my SES was one of my privileged identities.  My family had financial resources and so my class identity was not something I thought of often because I simply didn’t have to worry about it.  However, for my cousins who did not have access to those resources, they thought about their class identity and the stress it incurred everyday.  Jones and Abes (2013) add this into the model as a “prism of difference” (p. 86).  

A similar model is used by Romero and Roberts (2003) in exploring the multiple elements of ethnic identity development in Mexican youth.  They were testing for how different aspects of ethnic identity affected self-esteem and perception of discrimination (Romero & Roberts, 2013).  In contrast to MMID this model is still only looking at one aspect of identity whereas MMID looks at multiple.  However, similar to MMID, Romero & Roberts wanted to look at multiple dimensions because that would increase depth to their findings.  I think the mark of MMID on current scholarship is that it offers the most depth, dimension and complexity.  

Gonzalez, R. (2014, 03 29). Activists: We want an emancipator, not a Code Switch: Frontiers of Race, Culture and Ethnicity, Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/03/29/296290027/activists-we-want-an-emancipator-not-a-deporter-in-chief

Jones, S. R. & Abes, E. S. (2013). Chapter 3, 4 & 5: Multiple social identities and intersecting identities. In Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity (pp. 53-121). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Romero, A. J., & Roberts, R. (2003). The impact of multiple dimensions of ethnic identity on discrimination and adolescents’ self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(11), 2288-2305.

Frustration with Intersectionality & The Stagnancy of Identity Development

This weeks readings from Jones and Abes really has me thinking about the term intersectionality and how it is prevalent within social justice conversations and somewhat within student life, but not truly lived out.

Within social work education and the social justice conversations that I have been a part of, intersectionality is a buzzword that is utilized as something to constantly consider and to work through the lens of. What I find myself frustrated with is that although this framework is often as something to consider, it is often left out of the programming and lived out action.

So what actually is intersectionality?

Simple Breakdown of Intersectionality (In awesome picture form!)

Intersectionality was coined in the early 1990s by Black woman named, Kimberle Crenshaw as a way to look at the way that gender identity and race are intertwined for women. To put it simply, intersectionality "came from the idea that if you’re standing in the path of multiple forms of exclusion, you are likely to get hit by both"(http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/perspectives_magazine/women_perspectives_Spring2004CrenshawPSP.authcheckdam.pdf). Because of this foundation, I often find myself getting a little frustrated when I hear the term interesectionality when it is not in reference to an identity intersecting with race. There is a large conversation 

I thought that it was interesting that Jones & Abes' took a look at both Kegan's and Baxter-Magolda's meaning making theories and looked at the development toward self-authorship (in this case looking at Lesbian identified college women). This research came to the conclusion that ones capacity for meaning making has an effect on how external influences are interpreted prior to influencing self perception (Jones & Abes, 2013). To further breakdown this concept they looked at the role that cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal situations play in each of the meaning making stages (see picture below).

Jones & Abes (2013) p. 102

Identity Development Stagnancy

What was also brought up for me this week is this idea of development as an ending process. Although not explicitly stated, ones identity development is often thought about in the context of experiencing identity confusion and one day experiencing a sense of having "figured it out". In conjunction with this, Jones and Abes state, "answering the question "Who am I?" is a central developmental task...and is often marked by the experience of "identity crisis" or decision making" (56). This idea of only asking "Who am I?" in the beginning stages of development of one's identity is one that is included in many identity development theories as well as the idea of ever truly nothing who one actually is. Although I have known who am i and identified as a woman for the whole of my life, do I truly know what being a woman means for me or just because I know that I am a woman does that mean that my identity as a woman will never change? Although I do not have an answer for this, it is something to think about as we consider our own and the students we work with identity development.

With that, I leave you all with these wise words from Audre Lorde. 

"There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives."

Mical DeGraaff: Gender and Sexuality

Gender and Sexuality

as told by Mical DeGraaff

I would like to start this blog entry by expressing my frustration with the 24-legalization of same-sex marriage. I think it’s a bit ironic that I’m writing this blog entry while hundreds of people are waiting to hear whether or not the state will be recognizing their legal marriages (Associated Press, 2014). I was at Aut Bar when several of my friends and I (and many other people in the bar) first heard the news that Judge Friedman had overturned the Michigan Marriage Amendment, or the ban on gay marriage (Botelho, 2014). People were laughing, crying, cheering; one woman even told me, while weeping, that she would finally be able to adopt her 3-year-old son. Saturday morning, my partner and I took one of Spectrum Center’s giant rainbow flags and went to the Washtenaw Courthouse to support the couples getting marriage licenses (Biolchini, 2014). Then, just like that, it was gone again. I had to call my mother and tell her that she couldn’t receive health insurance benefits that will actually cover her needs because gay marriage was put on hold (Associated Press, 2014). Now we’re all stuck in legal limbo, and it’s killing me. With that said, here we go… 

I was first introduced to LGB identity development models through the Spectrum Center as an undergraduate student. It wasn’t framed in exactly the same language, or maybe I just did not pick up on the same things since I have another framework to work from now. The Spectrum Center primarily utilizes the Cass LGB Identity Development model to inform and explain many of their programs (Bilodeau & Renn, 2005). The model is a stage model in which each stage builds upon the previous stages (Spectrum Center, 2014). It moves from Confusion, wherein individuals feel confusion about their identity, to Comparison, wherein the individual compares various identity labels to their feelings; this stage often involves stereotypes of lesbians and gay men (Spectrum Center, 2014). Here, individuals sometimes retreat back to the Confusion stage, and they can exist in this Confusion-Comparison-Retreat loop until they discover or decide on a possible identity (Spectrum Center, 2014). At some point, the individual moves from this loop to the Tolerance phase (Spectrum Center, 2014). This is typically where one might hear someone say, “If I could change, I would,” or “I wish I could flip a switch and be straight, but I can’t.” The next phase in this model is the Acceptance phase, in which an individual begins to accept their LGB Identity (Spectrum Center, 2014). Following that is Pride. I like to say that people in the Pride stage would ride unicorns and wear glitter all the time. The final stage in this model is Synthesis, which is where individuals can see the ways in which their LGB identity influences their other identities.

I am currently analyzing data from two years worth of GPS requests for the GPS Peer Mentor program that I oversee in my internship. A growing theme in this data is the discomfort people feel with the idea of fluidity in their LGBT identity (DeGraaff, M. 2014). Fluidity is a way of expressing the changing nature of sexuality, and it can also be an identity. I thought Bilodeau & Renn’s (2005) discussion of the halting, sometimes backtracking manner in which people come to realize their sexuality really hit the nail on the head, so to speak. The discovery of one’s sexuality is a struggle that sometimes requires backtracking, as is described above in the Cass model, and stopping the process when one comes across an issue like the discovery of a possible fluid identity. Many people who request GPS mentors express concern that they do not know “what” they are; they may not fit into stereotypes of lesbians (toolbelts and flannel) or gay men (shirtless and glittery), and thus feel confused about what their sexuality could be. 

This middle ground can be very difficult for people to grasp, and is something we work with every day. I struggle occasionally with the proper language to use when attempting to classify my sexuality. I can’t identify as a lesbian because (a) my partner is not a woman, and (b) my mother identifies that way, and I may not be able to help that I’m gay, but I sure as hell will not identify the same as my mothers. But I also decided during my undergraduate career that I did not feel comfortable identifying as bisexual because of men’s desires to “watch” and the constant need I felt to prove my identity to other queer people. Bisexuality, fluidity, and similar identities can be very hard for people to understand, and can persist in difficulty through the higher-level stages of LGBTQ identity models.




References:

Associated Press. (2014, March 23). Rick Snyder: Michigan won’t immediately recognize gay marriages. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/23/michigan-gay-marriage_n_5018905.html.

Bilodeau, B. L., & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models and implications for practice. New Directions for Student Services,2005(111), 25-39.

Biolchini, A. (2014, March 22). Clerk grants marriage licenses to 74 gay couples in Washtenaw County. MLive. Retrieved from http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/03/clerk_grants_marriage_licenses.html#incart_river_default.

Botelho, G. (2014, March 21). Federal judge strikes down Michigan’s gay marriage ban. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/justice/michigan-gay-marriage/  

DeGraaff, M. (2014, March). GPS data presentation. Presentation conducted from the University of Michigan Spectrum Center.

University of Michigan Spectrum Center. 2014. Spectrum Center ally training participant manual.

Chloe Davenport Blog Post: Gender, Sexuality, and Girl's Life Magazine

Gender impacts development in a number of ways, along with several other factors including race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and ability. This was apparent in Linda Sax’s (2009) article. One example she provides is how in the context of college, male and female students might face different expectations in matriculation when choosing colleges (women often feel more pressure than men to stay closer to home by attending a nearby college so they can attend to family issues). The expectations of male and female students and the ones in which they personally have impacts their development.

The theories which Bilodeau & Renn (2005) described have similarity to several theories we have read in the course, yet Fassinger (1998) differs some. Bilodeau and Renn discuss the D’Augelli (1994) model of sexual orientation, which is as follows: 1) exiting heterosexuality; 2) developing a personal LGB identity; 3) developing an LGB social identity; 4) becoming an LGB offspring; 5) developing an LGB intimacy status; and 6) entering an LGB community. This process reminds me of several of the theories we have studied such as Chickering and Perry, in which students experience these stages, but in a nonlinear order. Fassinger (1998), however, explains how LGB is different from most identity theories. “LGB identity development exhibits a critical distinction from other kinds of minority identity development (based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) in that LGB identity usually is not visible to oneself or others (Wall & Evans, 1991). While studies around LGB identity roughly surfaced around the same time ethnic and women’s studies did in the 1970s, there are still differences around the stages students might experience through them.

 

In reading the Mueller and Cole (2009) article, there is a suggestion that the model of heterosexual consciousness they proposed was similar to that of White identity development models. I agree there are some similarities between them in that they are often understood as dominant groups and often perceived as normalized. However, it can be problematic to assume there is not variation among these two groups, or that being heterosexual automatically means as a group they disregard others who are unlike them. “Hoffmann (2004) noted that is becomes problematic when we fail to pay attention to the identity development of majority group members (i.e., heterosexuals) because it may ‘inadvertently perpetuate the status of majority group members as the ‘other,’ as the ones who need explaining” (p.375).

 

While I identify as a straight woman, my orientation is not something I am perpetually conscious of, and this seems fine to me. “For some heterosexual people, this consciousness may be an integral part of their life and for others it may be of little concern” (p.321). As someone interest-ed in working at the college administrative level, I know to expect a lot of diverse groups of students and individuals. My approach to students is being welcoming and open, yet while I aspire to those, I like to see myself as someone who does them, but lets it go without saying.

 

In Janine McCabe, Amanda E. Tanner, and Julia R. Heiman’s (2010) article The Impact of Gender Expectations on Meanings of Sex and Sexuality: Results from a Cognitive Interview Study, there is an exploration of how gender impacts sex and sexuality of college students on one college campus. Our findings illustrate that existing stereotypes and expectations about gender imbue individuals’ meanings, understandings, and discussions about sexuality, its importance, and its functions (p.261)

 

I was also interested in child gender norms. The link below leads to a post in Girl’s Life Magazine:

http://www.girlslife.com/post/2012/08/13/The-Scoop-Why-guys-talk-about-gross-stuff.aspx

 

Questions

1. Given some of the theories and ideas about orientation in the readings this week, what are your thoughts on your consciousness about your orientation? Whether you are heterosexual (‘majority’) or LGBT (‘minority’), do you think that one group thinks more about than the other? Do you think it is just individualistic?
2. Do you feel as though socialization growing up (how you dressed, what kinds of toys or games you played, what colors you liked) solely influences orientation, or do you think that it is more of an innate, biological sense that has come to define yourself? Do you think of it more as nature versus nurture?

References

 

Bill and Dave. (2012, August 13). Ew! Why do guys talk about gross stuff?

Retrieved from http://www.girlslife.com/post/2012/08/13/The-Scoop-Why-guys-talk-about-gross-stuff.aspx       

Bilodeau, B.L. & Renn, K.A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models and implications for practice. In R.L. Sanlo (Ed.), Sexual orientation and gender identity. New Directions for Student Services, No.111, pp. 28-29.

Fassinger, R. (1998). Lesbian/gay/bisexual identity and student development theory. In R. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students: A handbook for administrators and faculty (pp.13-22). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Mccabe, J., Tanner, A. E., & Heiman, J. R. (2010). The impact of gender expectations on meanings of sex and sexuality: Results from a cognitive interview study. Sex Roles, 62(3-4), 261.

Mueller, J.A., & Cole, J.C. (2009). A qualitative examination of heterosexual consciousness among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 332.

Sax, L. (2009). Gender matters: The variable effect of gender on the student experience. About    Campus. 2-10.

Some Thoughts on Gender Identity Development

The article of Edwards and Jones, Putting My Man Face On, was very inspiring to me. I found similarities in Chinese and American cultures with regard to the expectations for men, such as “in control of emotions or unemotional, responsible, the breadwinner, in a position of authority, rational, strong, successful, tough” (Edwards & Jones, p.214-215). I remembered when I was a child I was told not to cry when I fell to the ground and wounded myself because I was a boy. However, I also noticed there are differences between the two cultures. As Qin pointed out, “traditional Confucian culture, for example, places education, morality, self-cultivation, and gentleness in men as highly valued qualities. In the Chinese culture, physical strength is often negatively contrasted with mental or intellectual capacities” (Qin, p.42). Therefore in Chinese colleges and universities male students are expected to study hard and have good grades. If they fail in their academic study they are discouraged to participate in non-academic activities. As a matter of fact, intellectual development is of top priority for both college male and female students in China. The study of Edwards and Jones was conducted in one culture, the American culture, even though some participants belonged to sub-cultural groups. But they did not study the gender identity development across two different cultures. For immigrant students who are faced with two different cultures at the same time, their gender identity development becomes interesting to me. How do Chinese immigrant students cope with the different expectations from Chinese and American culture? Qin conducted a qualitative survey on seventy-two Chinese adolescent immigrants to find out how they negotiate different expectations from their Chinese parents and American peers. In the findings,

…both Chinese immigrant girls and boys in the sample experienced conflicts related to gender roles at home and at school. At home, doing well in school was the most important thing both for being a good Chinese girl and for being a good Chinese boy.…At school, both girls and boys faced peer pressure to present themselves somewhat differently. For girls, not being perceived as “traditional” or “old-fashioned,” paying attention to appearance and vying for male attention were important for peer acceptance or admiration. For boys, the pressure to demonstrate their masculinity through involvement in sports, video games, or other nonacademic related things was quite strong. The perceived nerdy image of Chinese boys often led to peer bullying and harassment. (p. 57)

According to the survey, “in negotiating these conflicted expectations and forming their ethnic and gender identities, the majority of both girls and boys indicated that it was important to be ‘yourself’” (p.57). However, their ways of “being yourself” were different based on gender.

Girls also tended to internalize the traditional Chinese notion of being a “good Chinese girl” and the great majority resisted the image of being a “popular girl” at school. In contrast, boys were more likely to feel more pressured from peers to construct identities against a “nerdy Chinese boy” stereotype and aimed to conform to “popular boy” images by participating in nonacademic activities such as sports and videogames. (p.58)

The notion of “being yourself” reminds me of the idea of self-authorship which I came across in many articles about student development. I also noticed similar notion in the article of Edwards and Jones. In their theory of college men’s gender identity development, which describes “a developmental process of participants’ greater understanding of themselves as men”, the developmental process “progresses towards a more complex understanding of themselves in a social context and moves from an externally defined self towards a more internally defined self” (p.221). This “more internally defined self” to me is self-authorship. In my study of development theories, I felt that gender identity development models share similarities with other development models in that in most of the models individuals start with being influenced by external forces and end up with developing internal foundations, which is the symbol of self-authorship. However, in Qin’s study, the Chinese adolescent participants had not reached self-authorship stage yet given that the girls were more inclined to their parents’ expectations and the boys were more inclined to their American peers’ expectations. I think this is because they had not reached the stage of adulthood. They still accepted the views of the significant others or authorities in their lives. Only that their significant others or authorities were different.

In addition to my discussion of gender identity development across different cultures, I would like to share an autobiographical essay of a Chinese transgender. The story presents an example of the gender identity development of transgender people, which could help us better understand the related theories.

Reference

Qin, D. B. (2009). Being "Good" or being "Popular": Gender and ethnic identity negotiations of Chinese immigrant adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(1), 37-66. doi: 10.1177/0743558408326912

Jun, P. (2010). Transgender in China. Journal of LGBT Youth, 7, 346–358. doi: 10.1080/19361653.2010.512518 

Leticia Abril Diaz- Forces of Resistance and Spaces of Persistence

Patton, McEwen, Rendon, & Howard-Hamilton (2007) believe that higher education and student affairs professionals have been provided with various student development theories, however, there is a lack in the knowledge and use of theories. The authors suggest that as professionals, we engage in a critical examination of theories and a way to do so is by exploring the roles of race and racism (Patton et al., 2007). Race, racism, and racial ideologies are areas that are sometimes overlooked and under researched  (Patton et al., 2007; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solorzano, 2009). Yosso et al. (2009) suggest to begin analyzing students experiences by the use of critical race theory (CRT). CRT derived from critical legal studies in the 1980’s and it accounted for the role of race and persistence of racism in the U.S. (Yosso et al., 2009). CRT has evolved to provide a framework to examine the experience, response, and resistance of racism and other forms of oppression (Patton et al., 2007; Yosso et al., 2009). Moreover, CRT can serve as a tool to identify inequities and hierarchies and transform campus climates (Patton et al., 2007).

Yosso’s et al. (2009) article resonates with me the most because it helped me identify critical language for my experiences and the students of color that I have and will continue to work with. I was born in San Diego and raised within the traditional Mexican culture. After graduating from high school I attended community college, which is classified as a Hispanic serving institution. Its students population is approximately 80% Latino and the majority are first generation Mexican-American students. When I first transferred to UCLA, a predominantly White institution, I endured a “transfer shock” from the overwhelming transition to the university life that catered to the predominant culture (Jain, Herrera, Bernal, & Solorzano, 2011). I experienced some institutional microaggressions that instilled feelings of alienation and discouragement. I endured what Yosso et al. (2009) describe as “cultural starvation”, the physical environment was embodied largely by the dominant culture and furthermore, it was not until my last quarter in college that I had my first Latino/a professor who was S. Hurtado. Similar to the methods used by Yosso et al. (2009) study, I was able to claim agency of my experiences when I learned to critically articulate my experiences, critically navigate the higher education system, and when I realized I was not alone experiencing certain institutional microaggressions. In order to dismantle a historical racial power base I was able to identify the UCLA Academic Advancement Program as a community that fostered achievement and excellence amongst underrepresented students. This program consisted of a transfer receptive culture and reconstructed the notion that was stamped on my identities of being “at-risk” to being “at-potential” (Jain et al., 2011).

Although I was able to identify a space of persistence, higher education campuses still consist of many pockets and forces of resistance. For instance, Marisol is a peer of mine and is a dual major in Physics and Comparative Literature. One day she arrived early at her Physic’s lecture session. As she walks down the aisle to chose a seat the professor attempts to catch her attention by telling her “the trash is over here”. Given that Marisol did not pay attention nor process his statement, she proceeded to walk towards a seat. The professor projects his voice and says to her for a second time “the trash is over here”, this time pointing to the trash bin sitting next to the white board. Marisol was confused, looked around the room and saw that she was the only student in the classroom. Startled by his statement, she tells her professor, “I am one of your students”. The professor frantically apologized. Based on Marisol’s physical traits, it was assumed that she works for the universities maintenance. Marisol’s experience depicts the interpersonal microaggression of a verbal racial affront directed to her from a professor (Yosso et al., 2009). This situation led her to question her intelligence and can further leave her feeling that her presence disrupts the “natural” state of being on campus (Yosso et al., 2009).

 It is important to understand the fluid and omni-presence of students’ intersections of race with other identities such as gender, class, nationality, surname, language, etc. The subtle nature of overt incidents accumulates assaults and is substance of oppressive structures (Yosso et al., 2009). CRT can be a tool to deconstruct oppressive structures and discourses, reconstruct human agency, and construct equitable and social justice relations of power (Ladson-Billings, 1998).  Over the past years the U.S. higher education system has experienced phases and spaces of hostile campus climates. These pockets and forces of resistance have led students to utilize media as an outlet to share their experiences in order to deconstruct oppressive structures, reconstruct human agency, and develop equitable power relations. For instance, a group of UCLA School of Law Black students shared their experiences of the expectation and emotional toll placed on them as students that are part of the underrepresented student body (Hing, 2014). A student from the clip shares, “No one can help me. No one can jump in. No one can at least acknowledge that anything I am saying is truth” (2004). Yosso et al. (2009) describe this situation as rejection of the students’ efforts to become integrated. The stress these students endure sprouts from the microaggressions targeted to any of their intersecting identities. Understanding the intersectionalities of our students and of our own can provide a better understanding of a student and as higher education and student affairs professionals, to better serve our students. Higher Education institutions should strive to commit to race, ethnic, and cultural awareness and knowledge of self and others, and we should critically evaluate historical views from different perspectives. Lastly, we should encourage to employ the constructs of multiculturalism and diversity in our teaching and learning environments.

Questions:

1.     Vincent Tinto’s student development model has remained as one of the most frequently cited, however it does not account for the experience of the campus racial climate of students of color (Patton et al., 2007; Yosso et al., 2009). Aside or in conjunction to CRT what are other forms/models/methods you would propose to examine a student’s racial identity development?

2.     How do student development models account for student experiences that are not among the traditional 4-year institution/traditional college experience?

3.     Given the rapid growth of student enrollment within the community college (CC) system how does this system facilitative a student’s race identity development and promote a healthy campus climate?

4.     Due to the increase of CC students that desire and/or plan to transfer to 4-year institutions, should CC higher education and student affairs professionals have the responsibility of providing a campus climate parallel to the environment fostered at neighboring 4-year institutions?

References:

Barrios, P.G. & Egan, M. (2002). Living in a Bicultural World and Finding the Way Home: Native Women's Stories. Sage Publications.

Hing, J. (2014) NOW: In Racial Justice. How Does It Feel to Be a Black Student at UCLA Law School?. Retrieved from: http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/02/how_does_it_feel_to_be_a_black_student_at_ucla_law_school_video.html

Jain D., Herrera A., Bernal, S. & Solorzano, D. (2011) Critical Race Theory and the Transfer Function: Introducing a Transfer Receptive Culture, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35(3), 252-266.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2010) Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education?, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7-24.

Patton, L. D., McEwen, M., Rendón, L., & Howard Hamilton, M. F. (2007). Critical race perspectives on theory in student affairs. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 39-53.

Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solorzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 659-691.