research shows that the foreclosed status correlates with difficulties in problem solving, lower self-esteem, high need for social approval, and rigidity in belief system. Further, identity diffusion shows outcomes more consistent with lower levels of moral reasoning, avoidance of coping with problems, and higher levels of compulsivity.4
The importance of this research for immigrant populations living in the West is three-fold. It gives description to the normative ego developmental process for all teenagers—what we regard as first level identity crisis. It also provides theoretical conceptualization for processes through which minority culture youth fashion an identity amidst majority culture—what we regard as second level identity crisis, and it offers key insight into the development of ethnic identity formation distinct to immigrants—what we regard as third level identity crisis. Ethnic minority individuals progress from a state of unexamined ethnicity (diffusion or foreclosure) through a period of exploration into the meaning and implications of their group membership (moratorium), moving finally to an achieved ethnic identity characterized by the development of a secure sense of oneself as a member of an ethnic group.5 For the ethnic minority teenager in the US the question “who am I?” inevitably includes aspects of race, color and history associated with one’s ancestry. By ethnic identity we are here referring to “one’s sense of belonging to an ethnic group in the part of one’s thinking, perceptions, feelings and behavior that is due to ethnic group membership.”6 Hence for minority youth, questions of identity carry the rider, “Who am I as an African American?”; “Asian American?”; “Native American?”; etc.
Navigating the waters of ethnic identity formation can be especially turbulent for immigrant children from more traditional cultures. The clash between Western individualism and collective, communal expectations create conflicting sets of identification models, role expectations, and socio-cultural norms that leave diaspora teens and young adults especially susceptible to identity problems.7 The developmental task communicated to children and teens in Western culture is to develop mastery over one’s environment and move progressively toward greater autonomy and self-reliance. The hallmark of this development is typically a process of increased separation from parents and family toward achieving a sense of individuality and differentiation. This is usually accompanied by such things as experimentation with changing vocational aspirations; encouragement to socialize with new peer groups; becoming financially independent; involvement in romantic relationships; and making one’s own decisions about religious involvement and political orientation. Hence, adolescence and emerging adulthood in the West often requires a renegotiation of one’s connectedness to the family, with both the young adult and the parents accommodating to the expectation that the process of deciding who a young adult will be or become is now increasingly in the domain of the individual.8
In more collectivist cultures, identity may largely already be defined by role expectations that exist within a more extended familial and cultural community. In these cultures, the shift from childhood to adulthood (note the absence of adolescence as a recognized distinct stage of the life) may not be concerned with separation from family for the sake of increased individuation. Instead, development assumes the acceptance of greater responsibility for one’s place within the family or clan itself.9 Rather than the emphasis being placed on autonomous choice to self-define one’s place in society, the journey to adulthood in traditional society entails the attempt of elders and peers to clarify the many roles one is expected to occupy and the responsibilities that accompany those roles. Hence, ethnic identity may be experienced as something more ascribed than chosen.10
In the West, morals and values have been ensconced in a body of written law, giving definition to what is acceptable and what is punishable behavior. Authority figures are given power to enforce laws in such a way that punishments and consequences provide the means for directing behavior and relationships between citizens. Laws do not have to elicit any emotion or feeling to be binding, they simply have to be observed. As long as one is not breaking the law, he or she is regarded as a good, law-abiding citizen and can harmoniously live in regular society.
For most non-Western cultures however, morals and values are communally transacted. They are meant to become obligatory and determine normative behavior not as a matter of law but as a matter of the heart mediated through relationships. For instance, respecting one’s parents is one of the highest shared moral standards in the non-western world, but rarely is it ensconced in law. Its manifestation differs with varying communities but can generally be seen in how one speaks to his or her parents or how one relates to his/her parents and other seniors with respect [in itself a term that has differing meanings]. Speaking back, arguing or saying any ill to one’s parents is an ultimate moral failure and dishonors the whole family. In some societies it might even be regarded as bringing to the family a curse from God and ancestors. Even if the parents are wrong about something, the child is expected to find the humblest way to bring this to their attention but not blurt it out as though in competition or disgrace to the parent. The phrase “children are to be seen not to be heard” is a good example of an expectation that stems from this example of a moral-guiding, communal ethic rather than a legal-guiding society. The conflicting way that morals and values are shaped and held by a society creates dissonance between children and first immigrant parents, an experience of third-level identity crisis that will inevitably show up in many of the chapters of this book.
Anne recalls a heated conversation that ensued in her household with one of her sons who was seeking to go to a sleepover at a friend’s house. Recognizing how difficult it was for him to secure parental permission to stay at a house with someone his parents had never met, and contrasting this with friends who got easy permission with a simple phone call home, he commented in exasperation “I wish I were normal.” Anne recognized that the sleepover had totalized the experience of her child feeling essentially different. In this instance, a classic example of a clash in the movement to identity formation is seen. When the western child asked to stay at a friend for a sleepover, the parents recognized a need for the child to engage in self-differentiation towards identity. The immigrant parent on the other hand faces a complex rationale to reckon with: can I trust that my child will be safe in a home of people who represent those that do not trust me on the basis of my nationality? Can the immigrant parent trust that their child will be treated well by people she has never met in this racially divided world and/or society of the USA? When will this child grow to the maturity of appreciating closeness with family that does not choose friends over family? Why is a “sleepover” not part of our culture of visiting, that’ is, the parents visit each other first before the sleepover? In this illustration then one can clearly see that the rationale used by either parent to make decisions about a sleepover is quite different. While the western parent recognizes this is a good maturational gesture towards independence and identity formation, the immigrant parent approaches it with caution and negative implications. Meanwhile, for the immigrant teenager, “Who am I?” expands into the form, “What do I really believe and how do I communicate that to my parents whose expectations of me are opposite from my peer’s parents, and yet do so without sounding disrespectful?”
Seeking an amicable compromise between peers and parents for many immigrant children poses the challenge of living in bifurcated worlds. In most cases, the journey entails arguments, denouncements, warnings and consequences often accompanied by the pain of depression, loneliness, feeling different, and even self-hatred. Rapprochement with parents often feels like resignation to never be understood. Immigrant parents regard as disobedience and disrespect any attempt by their child at asserting Western individuality by speaking his/her mind and arguing that a behavior is not illegal. Like Western children, conflict with parents sometimes leads to hidden behavior. However, whereas children raised in the West may find some vindication if the behavior is not technically illegal; immigrant children often carry deep guilt and shame as their conscience senses a moral breach and disaffiliation with the larger family and community. Consequently, immigrant parents may begin to feel dissonance and a fluctuating confidence as they question their own parenting style. Fear of the unknown fosters disillusionment and despair.
Indeed, the developmental outcomes targeted by divergent cultures may function to affect differing practices and norms across the lifecycle. Cultures emphasizing
