Intermarriage is considered by some to be the final stage of an assimilation process in which the ethnic identity6 of the minority disappears and the minority are absorbed into the
6 Ethnic identity refers to ‘one’s sense of belonging to an ethnic group, that is, a group defined by one’s
cultural heritage, including values, traditions, and often language’ (Phinney & Ong, 2007, p. 274). Phinney
15
culture of the dominant group (Gordon, 1964). However, another explanation is that assimilation is not a one-way process but ‘a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments and attitudes of other persons and groups and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life’ (Park & Burgess, 1921, p. 396). Jiobu (1988) emphasized that assimilation has two possible outcomes: ‘(1) the minority loses its distinctiveness and becomes like the majority. In this process, the majority does not change; (2) the ethnic minority and majority groups blend homogeneously. Each loses its distinctiveness and a unique product results, a process called the melting pot’ (Jiobu, 1988, p. 6).
Previous scholars have found that transmitting identity heritage in interethnic marriage involves a process of consideration and negotiation influencedby multiple factors such as gender, living context, and power relations. Rodríguez-García (2006) highlighted the main protagonists of social actors in processes of sociocultural transmission and adaptation. In studying mixed marriages between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand, Harré (1966) found that it was usual for the couple to tend towards transmitting Pakeha cultural values and behaviour to their children. It is explained that with the identification of Pakeha culture, the economic future of their children would be enhanced (p.99). Some families with Maori husbands emphasize the Maori background of their children by giving them Maori forenames. This decision was accounted for in terms of the patrilineal emphasis in the traditional Maori kinship system (Harré, 1966).
Barbara (1989) found that mixed couples face an endless stream of questions when they become parents. As soon as children are present, couples have to make numerous negotiations and decisions. Choosing a name for the child involves a lengthy process of discussion, negotiation and compromise between the partners and also their respective families, since the names will indicate the identity of the children, which will significantly affect their lives. In another study exploring the personal name of mixed children, Edwards and Caballero (2008) found that in choosing a name for their children most parents wanted
and Ong also emphasized that ‘ethnic identity is a sense of self as a group member that develops over time through an active process of investigation, learning and commitment’ (Phinney & Ong, 2007, p. 279). ‘The components of ethnic identity most widely studied were self-identification as a group member, a sense of belonging to the group, attitudes about one’s group membership, and ethnic involvement (social participation, cultural practice and attitudes)’ (Phinney, 1990, p. 503).
16
names that symbolised their children’s heritage(s) and were concerned about how this name positioned their children in wider society and in particular might intensify the risk of prejudice. The first names given by the parents symbolised parents’ hopes and aspirations regarding who their children are and will be, and to whom and to what they are connected.
The linguistic element in identity transmission will always be an important one, because the children are likely to identify with and belong to the culture of the language which they speak most fluently. An analysis of the role of the wider community in supporting or undermining family language practices is particularly important in the case of minority/dominant bilingual contexts since individuals’ values and practices are intimately shaped by wider power relations and ideology. Generally it is assumed that the children or grandchildren of minority-language speaking parents will be influenced by their exposure to the wider societal environment to eventually lose facility in their parents’ language and shift to the dominant lingua franca of their social milieus. An influential study of non- English mother tongue language retention among the children of mixed marriages in the US shows that non-English languages disappear between generations as patterns of social interaction widen to include intimate associations outside of the non-English-language community, and outside of the ethnic descent group (Stevens, 1985, p. 74).
Nevertheless, most studies have shown that the language spoken by children tends to be influenced by the socialization environment in which young children are immersed. Practically speaking it is often grandmothers and mothers who oversee this phase of socialization, hence children develop facility in the language of the female kin who rear them (Potowski, 2008). Kamada demonstrated that children of mixed couples in Japan whose mother was from the minority group ended up being more proficient bilinguals than those with minority fathers (results of a 1997 study, cited in Potowski 2008, p. 203). Another study that supports these findings demonstrated that Welsh-speaking mothers rather than fathers played a more significant role in the early Welsh language socialization of their children as it was generally the mother (even if she also worked outside the home) who was the child’s primary carer, spending more time than the father in one-to-one interaction with the child (Morris & Jones, 2007).
In studying the ethnic and racial identification of biracial children of African American- White, Latino-White, Asian American-White, and American Indian-White couples in the USA, Qian (2004) found that the choices of racial and ethnic identification are not random and are determined by several interrelated factors. First, given the importance of the patrilineal line of descent in US society, children’s race/ethnicity is most often identified with that of the father. Second, the mixed-ancestry spouse may feel that it is easier to grow up in American society as a White rather than as a biracial or a minority individual and may have the desire to raise his or her child as a White. Third, minority identity is stronger for intermarried couples in which the minority spouse is native born than those in which the minority spouse is foreign born. The study also points to the importance of external factors in shaping children’s racial identities. Intermarried couples living in areas where there are more minorities tend to identify their children as the race/ethnicity of the minority spouse (Qian, 2004).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Findings from these comparative studies on intermarriage in various contexts have helped to generate the key research questions and hypotheses for this thesis. Similar to the case of Maori and Pakeha intermarriages in New Zealand, whose occurrence was restricted by the different status position of these two groups, and by unfavorable stereotypes and cultural differences (Harré, 1966), multiple barriers hinder Khmer and Kinh from forming intimate relationship, including historical tensions, socioeconomic gaps and stereotypes, as well as cultural differences between Khmer and Kinh ethnic groups. But this type of interethnic marriage is real and may be increasing, as the Khmer elderly man reported at the beginning of this chapter, noted to me. How can this type of marriage possibly occur? What factors drive this type of marriage? Is modernization, which increases geographical mobility and increases contact of people from different social backgrounds, a facilitating factor of Khmer-Kinh marriage? Are Kinh people becoming more educated and accepting of the culture and status of the Khmer minority in their midst? Or are Khmer people climbing up the social ladder in education in parallel with Kinh people, and increasingly matching them in educational attainments as Kalmijn (1991b) suggested, making achieved status homogamy more significant than ascriptive homogamy?
How do Khmer-Kinh couples experience their intimate relationships? This type of marriage involves an intimate encounter with difference from the very outset. It is a combination of two individuals who may differ not only in terms of perceived innate characteristics, but also socially and culturally. The dynamics of mixed unions have been described as producing a complex space, an ‘in-between’ space’, conflicts or clashes may emerge from the intersection of differences in terms of ethnicity, class and gender (Bhabha, 1994; Killian, 2001). In line with previous discussions on the challenging encounters experienced by interethnic couples (Frame, 2004; Hohmann-Marriott & Amato, 2008), in Vietnam, differences in cultural practices and social positions of the majority and minority group as well as legacies of historical tension and unfavorable stereotypes may be present and cause conflicts and tensions in the journey which Khmer and Kinh spouses go through together. Previous scholarly researchers also highlight multiple ways of negotiation and adaptation that interethnic couples made to cope with many challenges, including familial and societal pressures, class and cultural differences to keep their marriage possible (Inman et al., 2011; Killian, 2001; Moriizumi, 2011), I assume that the marital life of Khmer and Kinh couples would be a dynamic process of negotiation and adaptation to differences, to keep their marriages viable.
And finally, what can be learned about the ethnic identity of the children of such unions? Does the ethnic identity of the minority Khmers disappear and are their children absorbed into the culture of the majority Kinh group, in keeping with Gordon’s hypothesis about intermarriages (1964)? Or does the transmission of ethnic identifications, culture and heritage to the children involve a process of deliberation and negotiation in the context of wider power relations, disparate living situations, and specific class and gender variables, as has elsewhere been noted (Barbara, 1989; Edwards & Caballero, 2008; Morris & Jones, 2007)?
This thesis examines the circumstances and experiences of interethnic Khmer-Kinh marriage and the multiple negotiations in the marital journey of Khmer-Kinh couples. It sheds light on the obstacles that impede marriage between these two ethnic groups, and how couples meet and get married, describing also couples’ experiences of living with differences and how they transmit their ethnic identity to their children. I argue that even
though the memory of historical tensions, cultural stereotypes and a wide socioeconomic gap may play a role in impeding the formation of Khmer-Kinh intimate relations, certain factors enable them to overcome such barriers to get married. I show that a series of conflicts and tensions in the marital life of couples need to be negotiated to ensure their marriage is viable and harmonious and demonstrate that identity transmission to their children also involves a dynamic process of negotiation between couples under the influence of family, socialization practices, practical benefits, class and gender issues. In the process, I demonstrate the value of qualitative research as an appropriate approach in understanding the marital experience of these interethnic couples. The rest of this chapter will present the methodology adopted in this study and the outline of the thesis.
1.3. Methodology