Classic and Contemporary Theories of Latino Identity Development

Classic and Contemporary Theories of Latino Identity Development
My identity depends on who I’m talking to. It depends on which setting I’m in. If I’m writing, I call myself a Chicana. If
I’m in a group of people who are in the community, who are the people who really are involved in community affairs like arts, those kinds of things, writers, literary people, Chicana is what I use [because] it’s more politicized in those circles. At home and talking to other people, I would say Mexican American, and with people who speak Spanish I would say Mexicana. Within the university, [because] these terms are used all the time.
—Higher education administrator, as quoted in
Ibarra (2001, p. 82)
If people ask me what ethnicity I am, unless they ask me what country, I will just say Hispanic or Latino depending on who
I’m talking to. If I know that the word “Hispanic” bothers people, then I’ll say Latino. But if they ask me from what country, then I’ll say Dominican Republic. I see being Dominican
Republic more as my culture than my ethnicity. … If they’re asking about my ethnicity, I would say Hispanic. If they were asking me about my culture, I would say Dominican.
—College student, as quoted in
Ortíz & Santos (2009, p. 130)
Latinos in Higher Education and Hispanic-Serving Institutions

27

T

HE PRECEDING TWO QUOTES illustrate the complexity of Latino social identity. The diversity of ethnicities, nationalities, languages, and other cultural entities among Latinos have led some to question whether
Latinos even represent a meaningful social category (Gracia, 2008).
Accordingly, Taylor et al. (2012) found that about 7 in 10 (69%) Latinos believe that Latinos have many different cultures rather than a “common culture” (p. 2). Meanwhile, they found that one quarter (24%) of Hispanics primarily use a pan-ethnic label (Hispanic or Latino) to identify themselves, while about half (51%) primarily use their countries of origin to identify themselves (Taylor et al., 2012, p. 2). Likewise, Zarate, Bhimji, and Reese
(2005) found that the majority (85%) of Latino youth in their longitudinal study selected multiple labels to identify themselves, and that culture, race, language, and nationality all played a role in their construction of ethnic identity. These patterns of shifting between pan-ethnic and national origin labels are exemplified in the quotes at the beginning of this chapter. Not only do the
Latina higher education administrator and student quoted earlier express that they shift their ethnic labels, they also describe that this shift occurs according to the social context that they inhabit in a given moment. This context can involve whom they are speaking with and whether they feel that their audience will understand or judge them based on the label that they use. These perspectives suggest how social identity development involves a fluid process of social construction and is contingent on contextual factors (D. Smith,
2009; Steele, 2010; V. Torres et al., 2003).
Investigating the role of racial identity for Latinos is a difficult process, because within the Latino community, there are just as many people who identify as White as those who are confused about how they fit into the standard racial categories (Tafoya, 2004). The number of identity labels in the United States used to describe Latinos/Hispanics continues to increase
(Rinderle & Montoya, 2008). Geographic locations, immigration patterns, history, country of origin, immigrant generation status, and current cultural trends all play a role in how Latinos identify with a particular race (M. H.
López, 2009). For example, some Latinos feel that racially identifying as White communicates success and inclusion in the majority culture (Tafoya, 2004).
28

However, most Latinos prefer to be described ethnically by their family’s country of origin, and relatively few (only 21%, according to Taylor et al.,
2012) typically describe themselves as “American” (M. H. López, 2009;
Taylor et al., 2012).
A well-developed ethnic identity has been linked to higher levels of selfesteem and overall quality of life, satisfaction with relationships and social networks, physical health (Utsey et al., 2002), and spiritual development
(Chae, Kelly, Brown, & Bolden, 2004). For Latino students, ethnic identity development can be an especially complex process, given multiple potential affiliations on the basis of language, family background, immigration status, and other dimensions. In this chapter, we address classic and contemporary perspectives on Latino identity development and contexts found to be salient in influencing that development.

Ethnic and Racial Identity Development in College
Students
Ethnic identity is a term used to understand or describe the level of commitment someone has to ethnic culture/heritage and the level of exploration into cultural values within his/her ethnicity (Phinney, 1992). In a college setting, ethnic identity may be defined as “that which students construct based on group membership, salience of or commitment to ethnic identification, participation in behaviors associated with ethnic groups, and external affirmation in response to ethnic group membership” (Ortíz & Santos, 2010, p. 1). Many of the first identity development models proposed that development occurred in distinct phases (e.g., Marcia, 1966; Phinney, 1993), but now researchers are suggesting that the process of identity development is fluid, with no specific start or end (V. Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009). Ethnic identity is not static; rather, it refers to a process of integrating values and cultures from both cultural heritage and the majority culture. Identity is socially constructed and can broadly be defined as personal beliefs about self in relation to others and how one expresses these beliefs (V. Torres et al., 2009). Identity development can occur within many social contexts at an institution, including classrooms, organizations, and meetings with faculty or advisors.
Latinos in Higher Education and Hispanic-Serving Institutions

29

Jean Phinney (1993) was one of the first researchers to develop a model of ethnic identity formation, and her three-stage model provides a foundation for much of the research existing regarding ethnic identity development. The first stage, unexamined ethnic identity, is distinguished by a preference for White culture and a rejection of one’s own culture (Phinney, 1993, p. 66). Students in this stage accept the values of the majority. The next stage, ethnic identity search, is characterized by some type of dissonance (Phinney, 1993, p. 69). An event causes individuals to rethink their worldview, and they become more committed to learning more about their ethnic and cultural beliefs, values, and history. In the third stage, achieved ethnic identity, individuals have reached an appreciation for both their own ethnicity, an understanding of the majority culture, and a self-defined way of relating to multiple cultures (Phinney, 1993, p. 71).
Scholars have been investigating how ethnic identity development interacts with other areas of identity (e.g., cognitive and other categories of social identity) and influences a student’s broader identity development process
(V. Torres & Baxter Magolda, 2004; V. Torres & Hernández, 2007). New theoretical approaches have also emerged to emphasize how dynamics of power, privilege, and marginalization affect identity development. These approaches have centered on the experiences of members of historically marginalized groups, including Latinos.

Latino Identity Development
Two frameworks commonly used in higher education student development literature to describe Latino identity development are those of V. Torres
(1999, 2003a) and Ferdman and Gallegos (2001). Both theories address a
Latino student’s orientation toward Latino and/or dominant cultures. Thus, these theories recognize how the diversity among Latino students affects the potential for these students to affiliate (or not to affiliate) with the majority culture in different ways.
Based on Phinney’s (1993) framework on ethnic development, Vasti Torres
(1999, 2003a) introduced the bicultural orientation model (BOM). This model describes how Latino students affiliate between different cultures. The
BOM has four cultural orientations: bicultural (acceptance and comfort with both cultures), Latino/Hispanic (stronger connection and comfort with the
30

culture of family origin), Anglo (strong connection and comfort with the majority culture), and marginal (discomfort with both cultures) (V. Torres,
1999, pp. 286–287). This model describes how students cognitively decide where they want to be located between two cultures (V. Torres, 2003a).
V. Torres (2003a) found that the environment in which students grew up, familial and immigrant generational status, and the degree to which students felt that they were privileged in society while growing up affected these students’ orientations early in their college careers. For example, her research indicated that students most likely to be in the bicultural orientation phase were born in the United States, were bilingual, were attending comprehensive universities, and had parents who spoke both English and Spanish.
Meanwhile, Latinos coming from a primarily Latino environment were more likely to have strong connections with Latino culture, indicating a Latino/
Hispanic orientation, while those coming from a primarily White environment tended to have an Anglo orientation (V. Torres, 2003a).
According to V. Torres (2003a) and V. Torres and Hernández (2007), certain events could catalyze movement from one type of identity to another, including a conflict with culture, a change in relationships within an environment, or experiences of stereotyping and racism. This movement could be positive or negative and involve varying degrees of struggle. For example, going from a schooling and neighborhood environment with a heavily Latino culture to that of a PWI might involve a sense of dislocation and need to learn an academic discourse that is unfamiliar, alienating, and disaffirming of
Latino forms of expression, including linguistic forms of expression (Núñez,
2011; White & Lowenthal, 2011; Yosso, 2006). In terms of relationships, leaving one’s family of origin and moving to a different college environment could require renegotiating relationships with family members, such as expectations for visiting home and taking care of relatives (Núñez, 2005); such conditions are often influenced by a student’s immigrant status (V. Torres,
1999, 2003a; V. Torres et al., 2003). Finally, for some Latino students, going to college may be the first time they encounter racism, and such encounters could spur an additional desire to explore one’s culture, through activities such as attending cultural events or becoming engaged in community service
(V. Torres & Hernández, 2007).
Latinos in Higher Education and Hispanic-Serving Institutions

31

Motivated by the recognition that U.S. racial categories do not always fit
Latino students’ experiences (Taylor et al., 2012), Ferdman and Gallegos’s
(2001) model of Latino identity development also offers ways to conceptualize how Latino students take on simultaneous cultural or ethnic identities. In essence, their model is a nonlinear typology delineating six different forms of identification that allows for the possibility of identifying in one or more of these forms. These types include (a) Latino integrated (integration of a
Latino identity with other social identities), (b) Latino identified (Latino pan-ethnic), (c) subgroup identified (ethnic subgroup or nation of origin),
(d) Latino as other (undefined and without a commitment to a group),
(e) undifferentiated/denial (view that race is not a meaningful category and thus no racial identification), and (f ) White identified. The first form of identity is seen as having the widest lens, encompassing the widest variety of perspectives and possibilities. One of the limitations of Ferdman and Gallegos’s
(2001) work is that, because it is a typology, it does not specify how one might move from one type to another. In the next section, we discuss further a more holistic approach to understanding Latino student development.

Key Tasks in Integrated Latino Identity Development
According to V. Torres and Baxter Magolda (2004), many ethnic identity theories do not fully account for multiple dimensions of development, including the cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. This section addresses more integrated, dynamic, and holistic perspectives on Latino identity development that are grounded in theoretical lenses such as self-authorship theory (Baxter Magolda, 2001, V. Torres, 2009) and Latino critical race theory (Solórzano, Villalpando, & Oseguera, 2005; Yosso, 2006). Emergent qualitative research is discussed that centers on Latino students’ perspectives and highlights how issues of power, privilege, and marginalization affect their cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal development in college (Núñez,
2011; V. Torres & Hernández, 2007; Yosso, 2006).
V. Torres and Hernández (2007) based their study of Latino identity development on Baxter Magolda’s (2001) self-authorship theory because of this theory’s multidimensional emphasis on cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal development. Briefly, Baxter Magolda’s self-authorship theory (2001),
32

grounded in a longitudinal study of 39 White, non-Hispanic students, asserts that individuals experience four phases of developmental growth in the life span. In the first phase, following external formulas, students look to authority figures for knowledge and do not have the ability to create their own perceptions (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. xviii). In the next phase, crossroads, some element of dissonance enters the students’ lives, and they start to question previous assumptions, while beginning to develop their own perspectives in the process (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. xviii). In the third phase, becoming the author of one’s own life, individuals form a strong sense of identity, establish their own perceptions, and engage in meaningful relationships (Baxter
Magolda, 2001, p. xix). In the final phase, internal foundation, individuals use a self-developed framework in combination with contextual factors to find meaning and purpose in their own lives, and to make commitments accordingly (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. xix).
In studying the experiences of students from a more diverse range of backgrounds, V. Torres and Baxter Magolda (2004), V. Torres and Hernández
(2007), V. Torres (2009), and Jones (2009) have extended Baxter Magolda’s
(2001) work by finding that dynamics of privilege and marginalization also affect cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal forms of development and, in turn, the capacity toward which individuals might become the authors of their own lives. A longitudinal qualitative study of Latino students revealed that creating positive images of personal ethnicity were critical to positive, holistic development (V. Torres & Baxter Magolda, 2004). V. Torres and
Baxter Magolda (2004) also provided strong evidence that reconstructing ethnic identity in turn prompts reconstruction of cognitive and interpersonal ways of thinking, demonstrating the importance of considering multiple dimensions of development in tandem for Latino students.
Similarly, V. Torres and Hernández (2007) found that intrapersonal development is linked with a student’s ethnic identity, while a student’s interpersonal development is linked with a student’s cultural orientation (p. 569). As suggested by V. Torres’s (1999, 2003a) bicultural model, shifts in development can be triggered by positive or negative events. Latinos can be prompted to move from following others’ conceptions of being Latino (external definitions) to questioning these conceptions, for example, when a new definition
Latinos in Higher Education and Hispanic-Serving Institutions

33

of being Latino is introduced by a trusted source or when experiencing racism for the first time (V. Torres & Hernández, 2007). Family members, co-ethnic or diverse peers, and cultural stereotypes affect how Latino students see themselves. Relationships with diverse peers promote interpersonal growth and a strong sense of cultural orientation (Ortíz & Santos, 2009; V. Torres &
Hernández, 2007). Collectively, this research suggests that a student’s movement along any of the cognitive, intrapersonal, or interpersonal dimensions of development affects the other dimensions as well.
Latino critical race theory (LatCrit) has also been used to offer insights on the role of power, privilege, and marginalization in Latino students’ college experiences (Villalpando, 2003; Yosso, 2006). This theory emphasizes the centrality of racism and its relationship with other systems of oppression, such as classism and sexism, in shaping identity, experience, and societal conditions (Solórzano & Villalpando, 1998; Villalpando, 2003). As an extension of critical race theory (CRT), which tends to emphasize dynamics between
African Americans and Whites, LatCrit also recognizes the effects of ethnicity, immigration, migration, language, phenotype, and poverty as influences on educational opportunities (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Huber, 2009; Solórzano &
Villalpando, 1998; Yosso, 2006). Through addressing these multiple dimensions, LatCrit interrogates the role of educational theory and practice in contributing to the subordination and marginalization of Latino students and seeks to transform theory and practice to effect social change that broadens educational opportunities for these students (Delgado Bernal, 2002;
Solórzano & Villalpando, 1998; Yosso, 2006).
V. Torres and Hernández (2007), in their research drawing on self-authorship theory, and Yosso (2006), in her research on Latino students’ experiences grounded in LatCrit, found that Latino students tend to face two critical tasks in their development during their transitions to college: handling racism and building community. For some Latino students, going to college is the first time that they encounter stereotypes or discrimination based on race or ethnicity, and such experiences can influence them to change their identities or behaviors (Ortíz & Santos, 2009; V. Torres & Hernández, 2007). For example, they may choose to take ethnic studies courses to understand better the societal foundations of racism, and this can change the way in which they
34

identify as Latinos (Núñez, 2011). Learning to handle racism and stereotyping is critical, because the stereotype threat (Steele, 2010) that Latino students sometimes experience can adversely affect their academic performance, even at the most selective of institutions (Massey et al., 2003), and can require mental and emotional energy that could be better deployed toward other goals (Ortíz & Santos, 2009).
Because Latinos can encounter isolation on college campuses, and because relationships with family members and peers are particularly important for
Latino students, building a sense of community is also crucial for these students
(V. Torres & Hernández, 2007; Yosso, 2006). For example, first-generation college-going Latino students who develop and maintain supportive relationships both with their families of origin and with college personnel and peers experience smoother transitions to college than their counterparts who have weaker ties to family members or members of their college communities
(Saunders & Serna, 2004). On predominantly White campuses, Latino students may find that curricular, co-curricular, or informal interactional experiences (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002) that connect them with other
Latino students, faculty, or cultural forms of engagement can enhance their sense of belonging in college (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Núñez, 2011;
Villalpando, 2003; Yosso, 2006).
These experiences can introduce Latino students to peer and faculty role models who can model how to navigate the college environment with a bi- or multicultural orientation (V. Torres, 1999, 2003a) and demonstrate that students do not have to abandon Latino-oriented cultural practices to succeed in college (Núñez, 2011; Yosso, 2006). Rather, building community on their own terms, both with co-ethnic peers and with peers from other ethnic groups, can support Latino students in developing a more “informed Latino identity” (V. Torres & Hernández, 2007, p. 169), through which they can choose among and integrate different cultural practices and discourses
(White & Lowenthal, 2011). Through learning how to handle racism and build community in college, among other tasks, Latino students lay a foundation for further cognitive, intra-, and interpersonal growth (Ortíz &
Santos, 2009; V. Torres & Hernández, 2007; Villalpando, 2003; Yosso,
2006).
Latinos in Higher Education and Hispanic-Serving Institutions

35

Supporting Latino Students in Identity
Development
Latino college students express that having a strong ethnic identity helps them build self-confidence, as well as increased political awareness and involvement, capacity to enter leadership and professional positions (especially those in which Latinos are underrepresented), and tools to challenge exclusionary societal conditions and dynamics (Ortíz & Santos, 2009). These experiences are related to stronger engagement in college, which is linked with positive outcomes like persistence (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). Thus, promoting opportunities for Latinos to develop their ethnic identities is an important component to promoting Latino student success.
Institutional personnel can promote Latino ethnic identity development in several ways, through addressing structural, curricular, co-curricular, and informal interactional diversity (Gurin et al., 2002). As suggested before,
Latino ethnic identity development will be contingent upon institutional environments, and the ways in which different institutions (e.g., community colleges, HSIs, PWIs) address these dimensions of diversity will vary. First, having adequate representation of Latino students and faculty on campus is critical, so that Latino students can see how other peers and faculty from their backgrounds navigate higher education, have access to role models for success, and experience a greater sense of community (Hurtado & Carter, 1997;
Núñez & Murakami-Ramalho, 2012; Ortíz & Santos, 2009; Ponjuán, 2011;
Reyes & Ríos, 2005; Yosso, 2006). Second, curricular opportunities, including ethnic studies programs and coursework, can offer Latino students intellectual and analytical tools, including critical thinking skills and understanding multiple perspectives, with which to explore their ethnic identity (Núñez, 2011; Ortíz & Santos, 2009; Villalpando, 2003; Yosso, 2006).
Third, co-curricular activities, including ethnic organizations, ethnic cultural centers, and targeted cultural events, can also provide venues through which Latino students can explore their ethnic identity, as well as opportunities to build a sense of community on campus with like-minded co-ethnic and other ethnic peers (Ortíz & Santos, 2009). Finally, given the importance of social networks and confianza for Latinos, the quality and quantity
36

of formal and informal interpersonal interactions with peers, faculty, and administrators also supports Latino students in ethnic identity development
(Ortíz & Santos, 2009; V. Torres & Hernández, 2007). One approach to fostering supportive interactions is that of academic and interpersonal validation (Rendón, 1994; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011), in which faculty and administrators reach out and get to know Latino students personally, understand these students’ strengths (including cultural assets), and encourage these students to engage in academic and social activities of the institution to build on these strengths.

Summary
Supporting Latino ethnic identity development is key to promoting Latino student success. Institutional personnel should aim to create environments that are responsive to a student’s evolving identity as well as a student’s affiliations outside the institution, including with family, precollege peers, and the broader community (V. Torres, 2006). This involves taking the time to learn about the cultural, social, economic, and political issues that affect Latino students. Moreover, it involves building trust with the student and valuing the student’s cultural background and assets (Patton, McEwen, Rendón, &
Howard-Hamilton, 2007; V. Torres et al., 2003). Such efforts involve significant investments, but also yield many benefits for Latino students. These efforts will be discussed in more depth in the chapter “Culturally Responsive
Approaches to Latino Student Success.” In the following chapter, we discuss the range of challenges that Latino college students encounter, including interpersonal and environmental dynamics rooted in racism and discrimination that can pose challenges to racial/ethnic identity development.

Latinos in Higher Education and Hispanic-Serving Institutions

37

Copyright of ASHE Higher Education Report is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.