THE SUSSEX LIBRARY OF

Asian and Asian

American Studies
SOUTHEAST

ASIAN
Series Editor: Dr Mina Roces, School of History, The University of New South Wales
The Sussex Library of Asian Studies publishes acadernic manuscripts in various
disciplines (including interdisciplinary and transnational approaches) under the
rubric of Asian Studies ~ focusing on Economics, Education, Religion, History, Politics,
Gender, and comparative studies with the West and regional studies in Asia.

MIGRATION
China’s Rising Profile: The Great Power Tradition, Harsh V. Pant, King’s College
London.
Chinese Identity in Post-Subarto Indonesia: Culture, Media, Religion and
Language, Chang-Yau Hoon, Singapore University.
Dancing the Feminine: Gender & Identity Performances by Indonesian Migrant
Women, Monika Swasti Winarnita, University of Victoria, BC, Canada. People on the Move in Search of
Family Ambiguity and Domestic Violence in Asia: Concept, Law and Process,
edited by Maznah Mohamad, National University of Singapore, and Saskia E.
Work, Refuge and Belonging
Wieringa, University of Amsterdam.
Han Shan, Chan Buddhism and Gary Snyder's Ecopoetic Way, Joan Qionglin Tan,
Hunan University, China and University of Wales, Lampeter.
Heteronormativity, Passionate Aesthetics and Symbolic Subversion in Asia, Edited by Khatharya Um
Saskia E. Wieringa, University of Amsterdam, with Abha Bhaiya and Nursyahbani and Sofia Gaspar
Katjasungkana.
The Independence of East Timor: Multi-Dimensional Perspectives - Occupation,
Resistance, and International Political Activism, Clinton Fernandes, University of
New South Wales.
Negotiating Malay Identities in Singapore: The Role of Modern Islam, Rizwana
Abdul Azeez, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Media Events in Web 2.0 China: Interventions of Online Activism, Jian Xu,
University of New South Wales, Australia.
The Politics of Dress in Asia and the Americas, edited by Mina Roces and Louise
Edwards, University of New South Wales, Sydney and University of Technology,
Sydney.
Pool of Life: The Autobiography of a Punjabi Agony Aunt, Kailash Puri (co-
author of The Myth of UK Integration), and Eleanor Nesbitt, University of
Warwick.
Southeast Asian Migration: People on the Move in Search of Work, Marriage and SUSSCX
Refuge, edited by Khatharya Um, University of California, Berkeley, and Sofia ACADEMIC
Gaspar, CIES-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal. PRESS
Brighton « Chicago « Toronto
 «

Copyright © Sussex Academic Press 2016; editorial organization of this volume

copyright © Sofia Gaspar and Khatharya Um, 2016.

The right of Sofia Gaspar and Khatharya Um to be identified as Editors of

this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Contents
24681097531

First published 2016, in Great Britain by

SUSSEX ACADEMIC PRESS
PO Box 139 Preface by Series Editor Mina Roces Vil
Eastbourne BN24 9BP

and in the United States of America by Acknowledgements

SUSSEX ACADEMIC PRESS
Independent Publishers Group Southeast Asian Migration: An Introduction
814 N. Franklin Street, Chicago, IL 60610
Sofia Gaspar and Khatharya Um
and in Canada by
SUSSEX ACADEMIC PRESS (CANADA) 1. Growing up in a Transnational Family: Experiences of Family 18
Separation and Reunification of Filipino Migrants’ Children
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes in Italy
of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, ltaru Nagasaka
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. 2 Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? Self-Identifications of 40
1.5 Generation Filipinos in France
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Asuncion Fresnoza-Flot
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 3 Intergenerational Conflicts in Vietnamese Families in Poland 67

Applied for. Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz
Hardcover ISBN 978-1-84519-665-3
4 Transforming Intimate Spheres and Incorporating New Power 92
Relationships: Religious Conversions of Filipino Workers in
the United Arab Emirates
Akiko Watanabe and Naomi Hosoda

5 Negotiating Transnational Belonging: The Filipino Channel, 114

od
MIX
“Global Filipinos,” and Filipino American Audiences
Papar from Ethel Regis Lu
responsible sources

ESS FSC*® C013056

6 Children of Hmong Refugees from Laos: Transnational 137
Lives and the Politics of Negotiating Place
Chia Youyee Vang

7 Unseen: Undocumented Cambodian Migrant Workers 159

in Thailand
Sary Seng
Typeset & designed by Sussex Academic Press, Brighton & Eastbourne.
Printed by TJ International, Padstow, Cornwall.
 Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 4 |

CHAPTER the term “1.5 generation” refers specifically to migrants’ children who
themselves migrate and arrive in their receiving country between the ages
of five and eighteen and have therefore experienced schooling successively
in both their country of origin and their host country. Unlike members of
the second generation who were both born in and grew up in the receiving
country, 1,5 generation migrants experience living in two different soci-
Single or Chimeric eties. In addition, unlike their parents (first generation) who migrated
after the age of eighteen and after completing their schooling in their
Ethnic Identity? country of origin, members of the 1.5 generation migrate when they are
still minors and complete their social and educational formation in their
receiving country. Given their complex childhood experiences in two soci-
Self-identification of 1.5 Generation eties, the mechanism of self-identification of these migrants therefore
sheds light on the various factors that shape their identity, including the
Filipinos in France way they see, present, or project themselves to the world.
What are the foundational references of identity of 1.5 generation
migrants? How do they define themselves following immigration? How
ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT does the receiving society influence their identity formation? This chapter
will address these questions through a case study of 1.5 generation
Filipino migrants in France, who came to the country via the French
family reunification program or on a tourist visa. Their exact number
In his book, I have Tasted the Sweet Mangoes of Cebu, George Estrada remains unknown. Official French statistics list 595 immigrants from the
(2003), who migrated to the United States (US) with his mother at the age Philippines aged seventeen or below, which represents 4.3 percent of the
of three, narrates his experience of returning to the Philippines to trace 13,876 migrants of Filipino origins registered in the country (see INSEE
his roots and meet the woman of his dreams. After a successful profes- 2010b)*. However, these data do not reveal anything about how long
sional life in the US as a journalist and university professor, Estrada recalls these children lived in their country of birth before migrating to France.
his journey in search of his identity. He explains, “I was a man with a dual Data from the Philippines indicate that only 101 of the 240,469 Filipino
ethnic/national identity that made me an outsider in both worlds. I had migrants aged thirteen to nineteen who left the country between 1988 and
wasted too much of my adult life trying to be something I was not: a white 2012 migrated to France (CFO n.d.). Being nearly invisible in the official
American” (Estrada 2003: 193). In his subsequent book, As Flip as I Want statistics, 1.5 generation Filipinos in France have not been included in any
to Be: Ruminations on the Filipino American Experience, Estrada research studies, as opposed to their counterparts in the United States
mentions the complexity of his identity, saying, “I came to America 50 (Buenavista 2007) and Italy (Zanfrini and Asis 2006). Another reason for
years ago a Filipino. I spent almost half a century trying to be an this lack of research is that scholarly interests in Filipinos in France have
American. The result is that I am both Filipino and American, and Jam mainly focused on the situation of first-generation migrants, who are
also neither” (Estrada 2007: 142). concentrated in the domestic service sector of the country (see Narula
George Estrada’s experience of self-construction in his country of 1999; Mozére 2005; Fresnoza-Flot 2013).* This chapter attempts to fill
immigration illustrates the situation of the so-called “1.5 generation” this gap and contribute to the existing literature on 1.5 generation
migrants. The term “1.5 generation” has been used to refer to specific migrants and their identities.
groups of immigrants who arrive in their receiving country during their To better understand the self-identification process of 1.5 generation
childhood. Scholars have used different age ranges that include twelve Filipinos, the present study adopts a phenomenological approach in
years old and below (Rumbaut and Ima 1988; Rumbaut 1994; examining their experiences to unveil the relationality between these
Allensworth 1997), between six and thirteen (Zhou 1997), between six individual actors and their social environments. The phenomenological!
and eighteen (Bartley and Spoonley 2008), or between eight and eighteen approach emphasizes the importance of considering the intersubjective
years old (Lev Ari 2011). In earlier studies, such young migrants used to aspect of human experiences and the subjective construction of social
be called the “second parental generation” (Warner and Srole 1945), or meanings in the life-world (see Ritzer and Goodman 2004). Hence, this
the “half-second generation” (Thomas and Znaniecki 1958). In this study, chapter pays special attention to what Levitt and Schiller call “ways of
42 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
belonging,” defined as “practices that signal or enact an identity which
demonstrates a conscious connection to a particular group” (2004:
1010). Among such indicators of belonging are food preferences, cloth-
ing, spoken language, and the places and groups one frequents. For
Goffman (1963), these indicators are “signs” that one displays in order
to claim a particular identity. The logic of such display of signs is better
understood by a closer examination of the “psychology” of the group
studied (Portes and Rumbaut 2001). This means delving into the inner-
self of the migrants in order to understand what they think and feel.
Indeed, cultural practices alone do not necessarily imply ethnic identifi-
cation; thinking and emotions can also shed light on the logic of cultural
practices.
Before examining the case of 1.5 generation Filipinos, this chapter first
reviews the literature on immigrant adaptation, identity construction, and
the 1.5 generation, then describes the methodology of the study. The core
of the chapter discusses the complex identities of 1.5 generation Filipinos
by focusing on the foundational references of their identities (namely the
heart, mind, actions, and physicality) and on the various contexts that
influence them. The inner mechanism of identity formation of the 1.5
generation Filipinos is connected to and influenced by the larger social
context, that is, the place Filipino immigrants occupy in their receiving
country, the role they play there, and the ways in which this society treats
them in return. Other forces structuring the identities of 1.5 generation
Filipinos in France include their migration status, their social class, and
their level of fluency in French.
Immigrant Adaptation and Identity Formation
Much of the literature in the field of migration studies focuses on the ques-
tion of the social adaptation of immigrants (children and adults) and the
process of their identity construction. The contacts between immigrants
and their receiving society result in different forms of identity that are not
static but continuously developing. In their study of contemporary second
generation children of non-European immigrants in the US, Portes and
colleagues (2009) demonstrate that these young people pursue different
paths of assimilation. Some find themselves in positive trajectories of
economic success, while others end up in negative trajectories leading to
“underclass-like conditions”. This “segmented assimilation” of the chil-
dren of immigrants can be explained by several factors including their
parents’ socio-economic resources and modes of social incorporation. In
general, children whose parents possess ample human capital experience
positive assimilation (Portes et al, 2009), This finding is consistent with
the work of Lee and Zhou (2004) on Asian American youth, which
describes a strong correlation between the immigration experience and
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 43
socio-economic standing of the parents and those of their children.
Similarly, in France, children of immigrants often encounter difficulties in
the labor market due to ethnic and class discrimination (Meurs et al. 2006;
Silberman et al. 2007; Brinbaum and Kieffer 2009). In spite of these chal-
lenges, the offspring of some Asian, Southern European, and North
African immigrants in France do successfully assimilate into French
society (Echardour 1996; Santelli 2001; Lacroix and Bouhet 2004 Avenel
2006; Equipe TeO 2010). Families play a key role in supporting children’s
education, which is considered a path towards upward mobility (Vallet
1996).
The literature also examines the adaptation of immigrants and their
children in terms of self-making, usually through the lens of “hybridity”.
This concept is used in the study of diasporic populations and denotes a
“process of cultural mixing where the diasporic arrivals adopt aspects of
the host culture and rework, reform and reconfigure this in production of
a new hybrid culture” (Hutnyk 2005: 81). Hybridity implies an equal and
continuous intermixing of supposed differences and similarities (Gilroy
2.000), as well as a double consciousness (Gilroy 1993) that is illustrated,
for example, by “hyphenated identities”, one of the many types of iden-
tities constructed by immigrants and their offspring. Among
Asian-American youth in the United States, there is an “emergent culture
of hybridity” that results from their “constant negotiation between the
traditions of their immigrant families and the marginalization and exclu-
sion they experience from the larger society” (Park 2005; 22).
In their work, Portes and Rumbaut (2001) describe four types of eth-
nic self-identities among children of immigrants in the US, namely
foreign national, pan-ethnic, hyphenated American, and American.
These identities “tended to be most stable” over time “among less accul-
turated respondents (i.e., who reported lesser preferences for English and
for American ways of doing things) and those high in perception of dis-
crimination”, as well as among those “whose parents were both born in
the same country and who spoke the parental language at home” (Portes
and Rumbaut 2001: 159). Considering their argument regarding the sta-
bility of identities among people who perceive themselves as
discriminated against, we might expect Asian-American youth to gener-
ally retain their culture of hybridity. Hybrid identities appear to reflect
the agency of these young people in their efforts to make sense of the
opposing forces surrounding them. In the French context, some children
emphasize their double belonging. For instance, children of Algerian
immigrants often use Arabic as a symbolic mark of their identity and
French as their tool of communication, whereas children of Iberian
immigrants continue to use their mother tongue at home (Billiez 1985).
Finding it difficult to access the French labor market, some children of
immigrants also turn to their parents’ countries of origin for professional!
opportunities (Richard 2004), fostering transnational ties in the process.
 44 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
The literature also points to the influence of both migration and citi-
zenship status in receiving countries on the self-identification of
immigrants and their offspring. Ilegality produces fear of deportation and
hampers one’s access to “legal” employment and other social services. As
a result, the differences and foreignness of migrants become even more
accentuated {see Dreby 2012; Chavez 2013; Gonzales et al.
Nevertheless, regardless of their migration and citizenship status, immi-
grants must often engage in practices that counter the “governmentality”
(Foucault et al. 1991) of their receiving state. Ong refers to this phenom-
enon as “cultural citizenship” or the “cultural practices and beliefs
produced out of negotiating the often ambivalent and contested relations
with the state and its hegemonic forms that establish the criteria of
belonging within a national population and territory” (Ong 1996: 738).
This form of citizenship underscores the agency of immigrant generations.
To summarize, children of immigrants construct their own paths and
define themselves differently through time depending on various “social
and psychological forces” (Portes and Rumbaut 2001: 190). These
forces are important to consider when studying the self-identification of
the 1.5 generation. As such, this chapter pays special attention to the
interaction between “structure and agency” at the micro (individual)
level, as well as “the interchange between ethnic groups and the larger
society” (Danico 2004: 50) at the macro level. The phenomenological
approach adopted in this chapter further requires a simultaneous exam-
ination of the interconnections among the “self,” “others,”
“world” (see Zahavi 2001).
The 1.5 Generation’s Kaleidoscope of Identities
The post-immigration identity construction of the 1.5 generation repre-
sents one of the most important themes explored in existing studies of this
group. This literature seeks to illuminate how receiving societies view the
1.5 generation and the factors that shape its self-identification. Their
immigration at an early age is often viewed as resulting in their “in-
betweenness”: “in-between origin and destination societies” as they
struggle to redefine themselves in their new land; “in-between childhood
and adulthood”, mainly due to the reversal of roles they experience when
their parents rely on them as culture or language brokers; and “in-between
the majority and other minority or indigenous cultures in the host society”
as they experience tensions linked to cultural diversity in their receiving
society (Bartley and Spoonley 2008: 68-69). Benesch (2008) identifies in
the literature on the 1.5 generation several such discourses of “partiality”
{in its meaning of “incompleteness”) from the viewpoint of their receiving
society, These discourses “pathologize” 1.5 generation migrants as
“different” and “having unique needs that create problems for educa-
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 45
tional institutions” (Benesch 2008: 298). Members of the 1.5 generation
are regarded as demographically partial, as they are “positioned as nonna-
tive (them) but on the way to becoming native (us)” (Benesch 2008: 298).
They are also portrayed as academically partial since most 1.5 generation
children experienced two education systems: one in their country of origin
2013). and the other in their country of immigration. Finally, they are considered
as linguistically partial, as they are “neither monolingual speakers” of
their receiving country’s language, “nor balanced bilingual speakers” of
both their native language and the language of their immigration country
(Benesch 2008: 301). This discourse is also rooted in the fact that
members of the 1.5 generation most often undergo difficult socio-cultural
adjustments, such as mastering the language of their host country (see
Harklau et al. 1999) and getting to know its culture and its history. Their
supposed “partiality” in the eyes of their receiving society puts them in a
social position different from that of second generation immigrants.
Aside from this “in-betweenness”, 1.5 generation migrants maintain
other forms of identities. Holloway-Friesen (2008) showed in her study
of the Latino 1.5 generation in the United States that gender accounts for
the differences in the maintenance of “bicultural identity”. Latinas felt
more “compelled to meet cultural expectations” than their male counter-
parts, and as a result, “compartmentalized their lives to reduce the
internal turmoil associated with accommodating different cultural expec-
tations” (Holloway-Friesen 2008: 59-60). In Israel, 1.5 generation
and the Russian immigrants integrate themselves well in their new society while
preserving their Russian cultural background (Remennick 2003). In
Australia, the majority of 1.5 generation migrants of Taiwanese origin
claim a Taiwanese identity, whereas very few see themselves as in-
betweeners or “Australian” (Ip and Hsu 2006), For members of the 1.5
generation, identity construction also implies a long process of self-knowl-
edge and of self-making. For instance, Danico (2004) reveals that Korean
“4 Sers” in Hawai’i identify themselves first as Koreans before switching
to other self-presentations such as Korean-American, Chinese-American,
or Japanese-American. In France, the self-identification of 1.5 generation
immigrants remains to be investigated. This generation has not yet been
a central object of any study, but rather only included or mentioned in
some works focusing on the “second generation” (see Simon 2003;
Richard 2004; Kirszbaum et al. 2009). This chapter addresses this empir-
ical gap by analyzing the experiences of the 1.5 generation.
The existing body of scholarship indicates that various factors should
be considered when studying the identity formation of 1.5 generation
migrants, such as family, immigrant community, peers, and positioning
vis-a-vis the majority population and the receiving state. Examining the
perspectives of the 1.5 generation migrants themselves allows for a better
understanding of how these factors shape their self-image, perceptions,
and emotions.
46 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
Methods and Sample
For the present study, I adopted a qualitative approach to data collection,
combining semi-structured interviews, ethnographic observations, focus-
group discussions, and secondary sources, and literature review. I
conducted fieldwork among Filipino Christians? in the fle-de-France
region, notably in Paris, from October 2009 to February 2013. During
this period, twenty-one Filipino immigrants of the 1.5 generation were
interviewed, Other persons interviewed included three Filipino priests,
fourteen second generation Filipinos, and fourteen migrant parents. The
1.5 generation migrants interviewed (eleven women and ten men) were
mostly single, students, and aged fifteen to twenty-five years at the time
of the interview; only four were older than twenty-five, at twenty-seven,
twenty-nine, thirty, and thirty-six years of age respectively. The wide age
spectrum of the respondents is attributed to the snowball sampling
method adopted at the beginning of the fieldwork, which allowed me to
capture the diverse experiences of the respondents of different ages.
Among the respondents, three were undocumented, while the other
eighteen held residence permits or had French citizenship. Contrary to
other works that limit the 1.5 generation to youth born outside their
current country of residence (see Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Benesch
2008; Holloway-Friesen 2008), this study includes in its investigation five
migrants’ children who were born in France but taken at a very young age
to the Philippines where they spent a few years before returning to France.
These French-born children felt closer to the 1.5 generation than to chil-
dren of Filipino immigrants who were born in France and resided there
without interruption. This was due to the fact that these five migrants had
spent part of their childhoods in the Philippines and attended school there,
an experience they shared with other Philippine-born respondents. The
only difference between these two groups is their birthplace, a factor that
when included in the analysis reinforces the “binary categories of nation-
hood” (Reyes 2002: 190), in which birthplace serves as an important
indicator in many societies to determine who is native and non-native, or
who is an insider or an outsider. Considering solely the birthplace of immi-
grants would entail overlooking other factors influencing their ethnic
self-identification. To capture the complexity of the identity construction
process of the immigrant children of Filipinos in France, this study empha-
sizes their childhood experiences in the Philippines as well as in France.
In terms of citizenship, two of the five French-born respondents and
five of the Philippine-born immigrants interviewed acquired French
nationality through naturalization, Being born in France of foreign
parents does not automatically give children access to French citizenship,
which they do not acquire until they reach eighteen years of age under the
condition of having lived in the country for at least five years after turning
eleven (see Legifrance 1998). The complicated bureaucratic process of
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 47
acquiring French citizenship requires a sizeable amount of paperwork and
time, which explains why three French-born respondents only had
Filipino citizenship at the time of their interview. One of the respondents
held a residence permit, a second respondent had a one-year visa, and a
third was undocumented. In total, seven respondents had French citizen-
ship and seventeen had Filipino citizenship (three had both). In subsequent
discussion, I will demonstrate the influence of migration and citizenship
status on the way the respondents (re)define themselves in their new
country. Interestingly, immigration to France triggers an increased aware-
ness of ethnic identity that respondents reconfigure under the influence of
several factors.
The Foundations and Contexts of Identity
Ethnic identity construction is not a straightforward process, especially in
the case of 1.5 generation Filipinos who experienced growing up succes-
sively in two different societies. Prior to their arrival in France, these
immigrants were Filipinos in terms of their ethnic identity, as influenced
by their early socialization in the Philippines. Migration to France
appears, therefore, like a “rupture” (Coe et al. 2011) that changes the
foundational references of these immigrants’ identity formation.
The question of national identity was not something that the respon-
dents had to entertain before coming to France, except for two siblings
who already held double nationality (Filipino and French). The mother
of these two respondents is Filipina, while their father is French, born
himself to a Filipino mother and a French father. Prior to their migration
to France, the two respondents were well aware of their double national
identity, even attended a French school in Manila and spoke French. On
the contrary, the other nineteen respondents only became aware of their
national identity when they were preparing to travel to France for the
first time, and heard their kin talking about passport and visa issues. The
arrival and settlement of the respondents in France represented a “rup-
ture” in their lives, as it modified their family arrangement (from
transnational to reunited) and their social worlds (school, church, etc.).
The separation from their caregivers and friends back home also repre-
sented a rupture for them, as it engendered difficult emotions that they
had to confront. To adapt to their new social and familial settings,
respondents turned to introspection to reconstruct their senses of self.
Based on the respondents’ narratives, self-identification rests on four
components, namely the heart (puso), mind (isip, utak), actions (gawwa),
and what I call “physicality” (or “appearance”), When respondents
made reference to their “heart”, they were expressing their feelings and
emotions concerning the way they viewed themselves after immigration.
They referred to their “mind” when describing their mentality, state of
48 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
mind, and ways of thinking. As one respondent, Suzette* (27 years old),
remarked, “I am Filipino in the heart, but I am maybe French in the
brain. J am French already”. In this case, the heart and the mind are
internal processes of self-identification. In contrast, actions and physi-
cality are external factors related to the body, with the former referring
to ways of doing things, and the latter to physica! characteristics such as
skin color, height, and eye size. Actions are also “ways of belonging”
(Levitt and Schiller 2004), signaling the identity of the actor. Some
examples include the respondents’ ethnic group frequentations (Filipino
and/or non-Filipino) and their cultural consumption patterns related to
languages (speaking Tagalog, French, or other languages and dialects)
and foods (eating Filipino or French foods at home). On the other hand,
physicality is akin to what Stone calls the “appearance”, which “covers
many things, including body size and shape, ‘reputation’ and ‘image,’
clothing, stance, and facial expression” (Stone 1962: 86). One respon-
dent explains:
Sometimes J would call [to the Philippines}. I would say, ‘Oy, here, it is
nice, enjoyable,’ you know. You pretend that you are very happy. Then
you ask somebody to take a picture of you in a beautiful [place], and
then in front of a car pretending that it is yours; that kind of style really.
(Gino, 36 years old)
Another respondent recalls:
Before, [ told myself that I did not like to buy clothes here. Before, I used
to call my Mommy [her aunt] asking her to send me new clothes. I was
asking her to send them to me [from the Philippines]. But after some time
you realize what is “in” here, like that. Then you buy fhere]. (Lea, 19
years oid)
Gino’s remarks underscore the meaning he attaches to his physicality,
including happiness and success in his new country. These achievements
are important for Gino’s construction of a positive image of himself,
which he likes to project to his family members and friends back home.
Physicality in this sense includes one’s reputation (based on one’s appear-
ance} and one’s image of oneself. In the case of Lea, time modifies the way
she presents herself through clothing, which demonstrates a progressive
adaptation to her social environment and a transformed perspective of
what is trendy, or not.
The foundations of self-identification discussed above are shaped by
the contexts in which the respondents find themselves. By context, 1 mean
the locations where one’s actions take place, the person(s) with which one
interacts, and the particularities of the situation in which one is involved.
This was notably observed in five specific situations. First, the respondents
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 49
tended to emphasize their Filipino identity during interethnic interactions,
at which time their identification by their interlocutors as “non-French”
reinforced their ethnic identity. Self-differentiation from other groups,
thus, often takes place during moments of social interactions, which
constitutes “the founding act of identity” (Kozakai 2000: 33). The
respondents also lamented how, during face-to-face interactions with non-
Filipinos in France, they were very often mistaken for Chinese because of
their physical features, such as the relatively smal! size of their eyes.
Respondents corrected this “misidentification” through self-presenta-
tions such as “I’m Filipino” and “I came from the Philippines”; in other
words, as a French person of Filipino origin.
The second context that informs self-identification comprises intra-
ethnic interactions, during which most of the respondents accentuated
their Filipino ethnic origin and religious belonging. Among the respon-
dents, thirteen described themselves as Catholic, five as Episcopalian, and
three as “secular” (laiques) or not practicing of any religion (despite
having been baptized as Catholic). Those who considered themselves reli-
gious tried to behave according to the expectations of their Filipino friends
and acquaintances, such as attending Sunday mass regularly, participating
in religious activities for young Filipinos, and expressing signs of respect
towards elders during conversation. As Malewska-Peyre argues, “the
adhesion to norms and values of a culture is an essential component of
the identity” (Malewska-Peyre 1988: 215). This is why Filipino immi-
grants who behave “differently” from what is expected of them as
Filipinos and/or as Christians are considered to be under the influence of
the “outside” (labas) world, meaning the larger French society. Behaviors
considered “undesirable” include drinking alcohol, smoking, taking
drugs, laughing out loud in public, and responding back to adults when
disciplined. These behaviors are considered as threats to “Filipino-ness”,
which the Filipino Catholic and Protestant Churches in Paris attempt to
counter by organizing various activities to attract Filipino youth. Through
the French schools that they attend, these young people are exposed to
French values and ways of life, which often results in intergenerational
tension. For instance, five female respondents described their lifestyle as
“liberated” and often causing conflict with their parents. The need to
navigate between French society and their Filipino circle of relatives and
friends engenders what Malewska-Peyre calls the “conflict of values” that
takes place when there is “incompatibility of expectations among the
groups of affiliation” (Malewska-Peyre 1988: 215). This tension resulted
in the five female respondents distancing themselves from the “Filipino
community”, with four of them defining themselves as being different
from their Filipino peers.
The third context in which the respondents emphasized their Filipino
identity is familial interactions, with one issue being the use of language,
be it the use of Filipino mixed with English or French in France or the use
50 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
of a regional language in the Philippines. The fourth context is geographic
when the respondents returned to the Philippines for vacation. In that
context, some respondents felt “different” from their Filipino relatives
and friends, and too “insecure” to venture out into the public. The way
the respondents dressed, talked, and made decisions prompted their rela-
tives and friends to conclude that they were not completely Filipino
anymore, but rather French. For those respondents who felt comfortable
speaking Filipino (or their regional language) and eating local delicacies,
language and food provided access to the larger family circle and history,
which renewed their feelings of belonging.
The last context that triggers the respondents’ identification as Filipino
or French is their interactions with French institutions (notably with
government bureaucracy and the school system) that began the very
moment they set foot on French soil. To be able to come to France respon-
dents needed official travel documents. Twenty of the respondents had
Filipino passports when they arrived in the country, and two also had
French passports (those with double nationality}, Only one respondent,
born in France, did not present her Filipino passport upon re-entry to the
country. Having no French passport, this respondent instead showed her
French birth certificate to prove she was a French national>. Passports or
birth certificates provide respondents with a legitimized national identity,
whereas their Schengen or French visas determine the status (tourist or
resident via the family reunification program) they will acquire after
arriving in France. Conversely, the absence of a French passport, a resi-
dence permit (carte de séjour), or a visa authorizing settlement in France
pushes respondents to identify themselves as Filipino. The possession of
supporting papers, however, does not automatically increase options for
self-identification, as the “biography attached to documented identity can
place clear limitations on the way in which an individual can elect to
present himself” (Goffman 1963: 18). This is particularly observable with
the French residence permit that shows the nationality of its holder, and
with the French passport and national identity card that indicate the place
of birth of the holder. These government-issued identity documents are,
in essence, “physical evidence[s] of the distancing of others” (Noiriel
1988) that accentuate the dual process of ethnic identity construction and
the dynamic interactions between individual actors (the migrants) and
their receiving society. During their interaction with educational institu-
tions, the respondents were not required to show proof of their migration
status; still, they had to provide a proof of residence (such as an electricity
bill or a receipt of payment of housing rent), a health card, and a birth
certificate or passport, which bore their national belonging. Feeling (puso)
constitutes one of the foundational characteristics of self-identification of
the 1.5 generation. Seven of the respondents had French passports iden-
tifying their birthplace in the Philippines, yet they felt socially
incorporated into French society.
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? |5 |
The foundations and contexts of self-identification explained above
reflect the dynamic interactions between social and psychological factors
during the process of self-(re)construction. This supports the findings of
Portes and Rumbaut on the complex identity formation of the immigrant
second generation in the US: “challenged to incorporate what is “out
there” into what is “in here” and to crystallize a sense of who they are,
they translate themselves and construct a variety of self-identities” (Portes
and Rumbaut 2001: 190). The section that follows unveils how 1.5 gener-
ation Filipinos in turn translate or not themselves in France.
Ethnic Self-Identification and its Variants
Redefining oneself after immigration involves taking into account the
condition of one’s arrival and settlement in a new land. In order to better
understand the logic behind the ethnic self-identification of 1.5 genera-
tion Filipinos, it is important to consider their immigration experiences.
Reuniting with one’s parents after a certain period of separation most
often entails the discovery of an intergenerational emotional gap. This
happened to most of the respondents who realized the extent of the
emotional distance between them and their parents after they reunited
under the same roof. Although the respondents and their parents spoke
the same language (Filipino or other Philippine languages), this was
apparently not enough for them to understand each other as a result of
their previous physical separation lasting on average seven years. The
respondents also experienced a challenging adaptation to the French
school system because of their initially limited French language profi-
ciency. The exception was the case of three respondents who immigrated
at an age of six and below, and who acquired French language proficiency
faster than respondents who arrived at a later age. In addition, most of
the respondents had to cope with their intense longing for their former
caregivers who took care of them in the Philippines when they were young
(in thirteen cases, this involved grandparents, notably grandmothers), The
difficulties experienced by the respondents were part and parcel of their
immigrant life, but they contributed to their feeling of different-ness. As
a result, as underscored by the narratives below, even after some years of
residence in France, respondents continue to define themselves either as
Filipino, or as a combination of Filipino and French.
Remaining “Filipino” Through Time
Case 1. Mario, a sixteen-year-old high-school student, was only two
years old when his mother went to France to work in the domestic service
sector, His maternal grandparents took care of him with the financial
52 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
support of his mother. During the ten years they were separated, Mario
was not able to see his mother who, at that time, was an undocumented
immigrant in France. After completing his elementary education at the
age of twelve, Mario followed his mother to France. At the time of inter-
view, Mario had been residing with his mother and her new family in
Paris for three years. His schooling in France reinforced his linguistic
skills. Aside from speaking Tagalog and Ilocano (two Philippine
languages), Mario was also well versed in English, French, and Spanish.
Despite his immersion in the French school system, Mario constructed
his networks of friends around the Filipino Protestant immigrant popu-
lation in Paris. He was actively involved with the youth group in the
church. Asked to describe himself, Mario said, “For me, I am really
Filipino. There is nothing French yet about me, as I really would like to
maintain my Filipino-ness.”
In addition to Mario, seven other respondents presented themselves as
“Filipinos” in all components of their identities the heart, mind, action,
and physicality. These eight respondents shared certain similarities. First,
six of them had Filipino nationality and held Filipino passports at the time
of the interview. The other two had French or dual nationality (Filipino
and French). Second, most of the respondents who described themselves
as “Filipinos” migrated to France during their early childhood, that is,
between six and thirteen years of age. This is generally the period when
influence and control of parents over their lives appear strongest. The
cultural influence of the parents is able to withstand the external forces
of French society when children are still very young as they are still
inclined to obey their parents. As the respondents reach adolescence, they
attempt to assert themselves and live their lives according to their will,
which often contradicts the expectations of their parents. Their pursuit of
independence, however, does not automatically translate into self-identi-
fication as French because of numerous factors that inform self-identity
construction {as explored in the previous section) including migration
status, a topic that will be discussed subsequently. Third, most respon-
dents were living in France for two to eight years, but their circle of friends
remained mainly rooted in the Filipino immigrant population. The main-
tenance of “Filipino-ness” appears to be the choice and strategic decision
of respondents to be continuously accepted by their fellow Filipinos,
notably their peers, within the immigrant population. Fourth, respon-
dents also expressed their emotional and mental attachment to the
Philippines, which eventually inspired their social practices (gatwa),
meaning their engagement with what Filipino immigrants in Paris call the
“Filipino community” in France and their participation in social activi-
ties and interaction with friends who are mostly Filipinos. Respondents
who described themselves as “Filipino” regularly frequented Filipino
immigrants’ places of gatherings, notably the Saint Bernadette chapel, and
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 53
participated actively in religious activities.© The role of parents appears to
be crucial, as six of the eight respondents had parents with dynamic and
constant involvement in the “Filipino community”. Many respondents
were introduced to the “Filipino community” by their parents soon upon
their arrival in France, notably during Sunday masses and social gather-
ings (see Fresnoza-Flot 2014), and have since built their own social
networks through connections.
Another commonality among the eight respondents who presented
themselves as “Filipinos” is their continued consumption of Philippine-
related products, goods, and symbols. At their homes in France, the
respondents and their families ate mostly Filipino foods, except for three
respondents who had French stepfathers and whose family meals were
rather “mixed”. The former group also consumed more cultural goods
from the Philippines (Filipino satellite television, movies, and foods) than
the latter. All the respondents were proficient in Filipino and some also
spoke additional languages of the Philippines. In fact, all the respondents
were multilingual: three spoke five languages, nine were fluent in four
languages, and nine in three languages. The languages in question are
English, French, Filipino, and Spanish, as well as four local Filipino
languages (Tagalog, Ilocano, Kapampangan, and Visaya). Only two of the
respondents who immigrated to France at an early age (six and ten respec-
tively) were perfectly fluent in French and spoke ir without a Filipino
accent. For these two respondents, French appears to be their first
language followed by their parents’ language (Tagalog for one, and
Kapampangan and Tagalog for the other). The case of these two respon-
dents who defined themselves as “Filipinos” despite their fluency in
French suggests that other factors, such as a strong immersion within the
Filipino community, exert influence on the sense of self.
The social networks of the eight respondents who identified them-
selves as “Filipinos” are mainly built on religious and ethnic affiliations.
This may be a result of the hardships encountered in France at the begin-
ning of their resettlement that prompted respondents to find comfort in
the Filipino Protestant or Catholic communities. Mario, whose case is
presented above, spoke of his difficult adaptation in school in Paris
where he was bullied and initially could not fight back as he feared
deportation. His fear stemmed from the stricter stance against undocu-
mented immigrants at that time under the right-wing presidency of
Nicolas Sarkozy. Mario’s fear of deportation reinforced his ties to the
Filipino Protestant group with which his family was affiliated that
offered him refuge as well as moral support to his family. The difficulty
felt by some respondents in making friends at schoo! also motivated
them to look for friends within the Filipino community. Lea shared her
French schooling experience:
There [in the Philippines], you go out with your school friends. They’re
54 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
really your friends. Here, after schoo! hours, depending on your friend-
ship and if you really clicked with one another, you meet your school
friends outside, but not that often. They’re like your friends only within
the school premise.
This remark underscores how children who attended schools in rural
locations in the Philippines felt when they began their schooling in a
large city like Paris. Going out after class with some schoolmates was
easy for them in the Philippines, as they usually resided in the same
neighborhood and their families knew one another. However, the situa-
tion is very different in Paris. In short, what makes the eight respondents
in this study present themselves as Filipinos are their experiences of
being bullied and feeling lonely in schoo! (as Mario and Lea experi-
enced), as well as their strong connection with their country of origin
and fellow immigrant compatriots. Through their everyday practices,
such as the consumption of Filipino goods and symbolic products, and
deep engagement with the Filipino community, these respondents
demonstrate the various “ways of belonging” (Levitt and Schiller 2004)
that highlight their Filipino ethnic belonging. The fact that these respon-
dents are able to maintain their “Filipino-ness” underscores the
influence of the family, the community, and the settlement experiences in
reinforcing ethnic consciousness.
Developing a Chimeric Identity
In contrast to the respondents who claimed to have a single ethnic iden-
tity (Filipino), thirteen respondents claimed to have “mixed,” “double,”
or “half-half” identity. This compartmentalization of the Filipino and
French ethnic selves in one body is chimeric, like the creature in the Greek
mythology with a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a snake’s tail, but whose
body functions well despite being made up of very different parts. Here,
I define a person with chimeric ethnic identity as someone who attributes
the different components (heart, mind, action, or physicality) of himself
or herself to different ethnic belongings. Such identity i is more complex
than a hyphenated one that simply indicates one’s dual ethnic belonging.
It is also different from a hybrid identity that implies equal blending of
differences. In contrast to hyphenated and hybrid identities, embracing a
chimeric identity means that one may define oneself as Filipino in the heart
(emotions) and in terms of physicality, but as French in the mind (ways of
thinking) and in one’s actions (practices, ways of doing things). During
the interview, most of the thirteen respondents who presented such
chimeric identity focused their self-presentation on one particular compo-
nent of their identity, with only a few focusing on two or more aspects of
their selves. Six respondents concentrated on their mind, their actions, or
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 55
their physicality, when presenting themselves, as illustrated by the
following case,
Case 2. Linda, thirty years old, came to France as a tourist at the age of
eleven, accompanied by her mother. There, she reunited with her father
and her siblings who arrived in the country before her. Despite her school
difficulties as a result of her low mastery of the French language, as well
as her family-related problems, such as the death of her mother, Linda
was able to finish a vocational course in sewing. However, instead of
using this skill to find a job, she followed the footsteps of her mother by
becoming a nanny and a house cleaner. Linda’s friends were mainly chil-
dren of Filipino immigrants, and her contacts with French individuals
took place mostly in the frame of her domestic work. At the time of the
interview Linda had been residing in France for nineteen years, and had
already obtained French nationality, She remarked: “my mentality is like
French already. I think I am maybe now a French.” The reason for such
a declaration is Linda’s experience upon returning to the Philippines, at
which time she found out how different she had become compared to her
cousin who hesitated to do some things out of fear of embarrassment.
Linda said, “I told her, “Why do you feel embarrassed? Life is really like
this, it is really like this, it is normal.’”
The encounter that took place during Linda’s visit to the Philippines
made her aware that something in her mind had changed and had become
“French”. Her focus on her way of thinking as a definition of her iden-
tity underscores the difference she sees between herself and the majority
“others”, that is, Filipinos in the Philippines and self-identified Filipinos
in France. Linda’s long years of exposure to and immersion in the French
way of life made her aware of which parts of herself underwent transfor-
mation during her settlement process in France.
Whereas Linda and five other respondents emphasized a single aspect
of their selves when asked to define themselves, four respondents focused
on two aspects, such as the mind and heart, or the heart and actions.
Case 3. Arnel, twenty-six years old and born in Rizal province in the
Philippines, migrated to France at the age of sixteen throughi the family
reunification program. The marriage of his mother to a French national
facilitated the processing of his papers, and later his rapid social adap-
tation in France, At home, French was the language of the family, which
hastened Arnel’s mastery of the language. Given this stimulating home
environment and his strong motivation to succeed, Arnel passed the
French national examination at the end of senior high school ({baccalan-
réat) and went on to a vocational school to study tourism, where he
obtained a higher education diploma (the Brevet de technicien
supérieur), At the time of his interview, Arnel was a waiter serving break-
56 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
fast in a restaurant-hotel, a job that he quite enjoyed. His contact with
other Filipino immigrants remained strong through the years.
Immediately upon his arrival in France, Arnel joined a religious youth
group, and then decided to frequent another Christian church where he
met his present girlfriend. According to Arnel, his friends are mostly
Filipinos and his best friend also grew up in the Philippines before coming
to France. Arnel described himself as follows: “In my point of view, lam
more of here [France] in terms of ways of thinking fisip]”. He elaborated
by citing what he perceived to be the difference between being French
and being Filipino: “What we [Filipinos] feel, we just express them. Here
no; it is really about using the mind. What is necessary here is the use of
the mind. So, it is like a big help to me, that is an advantage I got
compared to others”. He added what he felt by saying, “[ am] Filipino,
Filipino who is really Filipino in the sense that 1 am until now the same
person [I knew] since I was small”.
Arnel’s chimeric identity is explained by the duration of his residence
in France (ten years), and by his constant exposure to the French language
and culture in- and outside of his home.
Having an intimate relationship with a French national may also
contribute to the making of a chimeric identity. One respondent whom I
shall call Tina (twenty years old), who had been in France for only four
years at the time of her interview, confided that she already felt French in
terms of her ways of doing things. Her French boyfriend played an impor-
tant role in her adaptation in the French society. Tina recalls, “[He] helped
me a lot since we were always together. Everyday, I was obliged to speak
in French”. This case is an exception to the general trend observed among
1.5 generation Filipinos in which the time spent in the receiving society is
the most determining factor in the formation of the chimeric identity.
Tina’s experience supports the conclusion of the study by Scott and
Cartledge who found that a “native partner” might “[act] as a bridgehead
[...] into the host society” (Scott and Cartledge 2009: 75). However,
unlike the respondents in the Scott and Cartledge study, having a “native
partner” did not automatically result in the “extreme assimilation” of
Tina. It facilitated her successful assimilation into French society, notably
through the mastery of the French language, but did not stop her from
maintaining some aspects of her Filipino self.
In some instances, complicated migration trajectories can also lead
migrants to emphasize different identities for each component of their
selves during self-definition, as illustrated by the case below.
Case 4. Tito, twenty-three years old, has lived in France with his mother
for twelve years. He was born in Manila but grew up in the Aklan
province in the centra] part of the Philippines. When he was one year old,
his aunt helped his mother travel to France to work. His grandparents
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 57
took care of him until, at the age of five, when his mother decided for
him to migrate to France with his grandmother. When he arrived at the
apartment of his mother, Tito discovered that she was living with a new.
partner. It hurt him a lot, yet he could not do anything but accept the
situation. Four years later, Tito’s grandmother decided to return to the
Philippines because of her old age. Being close to his grandmother, Tito
returned with her. He was nine years old at the time. In the Philippines,
Tito had a hard time in school, as he had already forgotten how to speak
Tagalog and Visaya. When he finally adapted to the school system in the
Philippines at the age of twelve, Tito’s mother decided to make him
return to France where he has lived ever since. Asked to describe himself,
Tito answered, “Every time there is someone who asks me that, I always
reply ‘Filipino’. I could not say ‘French’, because my papers are not
French.” When asked whether he intended one day to obtain double
nationality, Tito replied, “I would say I am a French-Filipino. So if I
change to French, J will have a double nationality.” Moreover, Tito
described his dressing habit as following the “French fashion.” He
remarked: “In 2008 when I went back [to the Philippines], people said,
“What is that? You look like a gay.’ [This is] because my style is different
now; I started, you know, like wearing things neon, something like sharp,
pointed Italian shoes, colorful t-shirts, something like that.”
-Tito’s narratives emphasize how feelings {the heart), ways of thinking
(the mind), and physicality (physical appearance), determine the way 1.5
generation Filipinos (re)present themselves. His circulation between
France and the Philippines, and the family changes he underwent during
this migratory process, contribute to his chimeric identity, His narratives
also stress the importance of French citizenship in the construction of
French identity. However, Tito’s case illustrates that French citizenship is
not the only factor necessary for a member of the 1.5 generation to feel
French. One’s self-presentation, such as in the style and color of clothes
and shoes, also matters. The mastery of the French language is another
important factor in developing a feeling of belonging in France.
Proficiency in French allows the respondents, notably those with
chimeric identity like Tito, to become easily integrated in their schools
and workplaces. This underscores the complexity of identity construc-
tion in the context of youth migration, which prompted two respondents
to define themselves as “mixed” and “half” respectively without further
elaboration.
Analyzing the discourses of respondents with chimeric identities illu-
minates the internal processes that occur among 1.5 generation children
of immigrants following their (re)-settlement in France. The factors that
define this group include their length of immigration, their nationality,
and their state of social incorporation in their receiving country. At the
time of the interviews, most respondents had resided in France for ten to
58 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
twenty years, and had completed their education in the French school
system. Five respondents had French nationality. Except for seven who
were still students, six respondents had professional employment. All thir-
teen respondents spoke fluent French at the time. Nevertheless, they
retained mastery of their parents’ language and continued to consume
Filipino cultural symbols. Therefore, the increasing length of stay in
France has not diminished their Filipino-ness, but resulted in a chimeric
identity where Filipino and French parts co-existed in harmony with each
other.
The Critical Role of the Receiving Society and Other Forces
Structuring Identity
The self-categorization of the 1.5 generation respondents either as
“Filipino” or as having chimeric ethnic identity (“mixed”, “double” or
“half-half”) does not occur in isolation. The way French society receives
Filipinos and the immigrants’ migration status, social class, and fluency
in French, all inform the formation of their ethnic identities. Unlike the
countries of origin of the major immigrant groups in France such as the
North Africans, diplomatic relations between the Philippines and France
only began in 1947. Because of these limited contacts in the past, the
absence of colonial links between these two nations, and the relatively
small size of the Filipino community, Filipinos in France are usually
mistaken for nationals of other Southeast and East Asian countries
(China, Japan and Korea), who are much more frequently encountered in
France. This experience was documented early on in the writings of Jose
Rizal’, specifically in his letter to his family dated 21 June 1883, in which
he stated: “Here they call us Japanese, because there is a large number of
them around”. The respondents in this study reported similar experiences.
However, unlike immigrants of African origin in France, Filipinos rarely
face racism and remain relatively immune to the attention of immigration
authorities. In 2008, for instance, the then right-wing government in
power launched a strong campaign against illegal immigrants in which
many undocumented immigrants were arrested and deported. However,
arrests included almost no Filipinos. As the satirical French newspaper
Canard Enchainé reported on 13 February 2008, “According to special-
ists of the rights of foreigners, “we almost never see Filipinos being
expulsed’” (S. 2008). This highlights the absence of antagonistic attitudes
of the majority population towards Filipinos, who fulfill the demand for
care labor in many French and foreign households in the country. As a
result, Filipino immigrants’ domestic work does not only make them
socially invisible, but does provide protection to undocumented Filipinos
since their employers belong mostly to the French privileged class
(Fresnoza-Flot 2010).
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 59
Furthermore, there is a positive attitude in French society towards
immigrants of Asian origin in general, which is partly due to this group’s
scholastic success. For example, a recent study of 22,000 immigrants
and their children reported that about 47 percent of men, and 50 per-
cent of women, of Asian descent obtain university diplomas (Equipe
TeO 2010; Gabizon 2010). The self-presentation as “Filipino,” or as
French of Filipino origin, of the 1.5 generation respondents suggests
their internalization of the favorable opinion of the larger French popu-
lation towards Asians, a situation known as “social mirroring”
(Suadrez-Orozco et al. 2011). The positive image of Asians in France can
also be a disadvantage as some respondents were harassed and called
“Chinese” in a pejorative way by schoolmates belonging to ethnic
groups receiving less favorable social attention. The respondents, in
turn, dealt with this situation by stressing their differences from the
encompassing category of “Asians” and by emphasizing their ethnic ori-
gin. Interestingly, respondents mentioned that their native French
schoolmates never teased them, only other immigrants. This is largely
attributable to the “silent integration” (Pairault 1995) and relatively suc-
cessful economic integration of Chinese and other Asian immigrants in
France, many of whom are engaged in entrepreneurial activities. This
mode of integration contrasts with other immigrant groups who
encounter more difficulties to incorporate themselves in France as a
result of social discriminations, notably in the labor market. The experi-
ence of verbal or physical aggression during interethnic contacts shaped
the respondents’ attitude towards their “aggressors”. For instance,
Mario who was bullied by some schoolmates of North African origin,
held unfavorable opinion of members of this ethnic group and avoided
interacting with them following the incident. This kind of reaction ham-
pers future positive interactions among ethnic groups.
The irregular migration status of most Filipinos in France, including
some of their offspring {such as the three respondents in the present
study}, complicates family life (Fresnoza-Flot 2013). The tightening of
French immigration policies throughout the years provides limited
options for undocumented immigrants to regularize their status. This
reduces access to employment, housing, and other forms of support
outside of the Filipino community, thereby limiting the chances of
mastering the French language through interactions with the larger French
population. As a result of their irregular migration status, some undocu-
mented parents send their France-born children to the Philippines and
later bring them back to France once they have regularized their immi-
gration status. This was the case with five respondents in this study.
Whereas, growing up in the Philippines led them to develop a feeling of
attachment to the country, the fact that they were born in France offered
them easy access to French citizenship at the age of 18, allowing them to
settle there permanently. In the case of the three 1.5 generation respon-
60 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
dents with irregular migration status, their irregularity did not hamper
their social adaptation, as their enrollment in French schools provided
them the social space to incorporate themselves. Other respondents
oriented themselves towards jobs in the service sector (waiter, cook, hotel
receptionist, sales person) that facilitated their social incorporation in
France. Thus, schools and the labor market were sites where the respon-
dents, like many migrant parents and their children, found avenues to
achieve social incorporation and what Ong (1996) refers to as “cultural
citizenship,” hence to become part of French society regardless of their
migration status.
Another important factor in the identity construction of the respon-
dents was their social class standing in France. Except in the case of two
respondents born to privileged families in the Philippines and whose
parents worked outside of the domestic service sector, all the respondents
came from working-class families. These respondents were well aware of
their class standing and the demanding jobs of their parents as house
cleaners, nannies, cooks, or caregivers. As Gino explained, the French
“know that Filipinos are just [domestic] helpers [... ], that’s how they
see us”. The class-consciousness of the respondents drove many of them
to study harder in school in order to obtain socially valorized jobs in the
French labor market, notably in the service sector. The economic hard-
ships experienced by their families reinforced their feelings of
Filipino-ness, but their successful social incorporation and the regular
migration status or French citizenship they obtained eventually resulted
in their chimeric identity. Their French language fluency contributed to
the development of this identity, as they become more knowledgeable of
the communication protocols and of the subtleties of the French language.
At the same time, respondents maintained fluency in various Filipino
languages, as well as in English. This factor distinguishes the 1.5 genera-
tion from their “second generation” counterparts who are fluent in
French, but not necessarily in a language of the Philippines. However, it
must be noted that fluency in French does not automatically results in a
chimeric identity, as we observe among the eight respondents who define
themselves as “Filipinos”. It is the continuous interaction of different
structuring factors (the receiving country’s attitude towards Filipinos, the
migration or citizenship status of the respondents, their social class, etc.)
in a given context, as well as an additional element of time to transition,
that form the identity of the 1.5 generation respondents.
Conclusion
Contrary to George Estrada who has a dual ethnic identity (both Filipino
and American), and whose case was presented at the beginning of this
chapter, the 1.5 generation respondents in France either maintained a
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 6 |
single Filipino identity, or developed a chimeric French-Filipino identity.
These post-immigration identities are context-dependent. The identity
{reconstruction of the 1.5 generation involves internal and external
mechanisms influenced by individual agency, as well as the general atti-
tudes towards Filipino immigrants by the majority French population and
other immigrant groups. Respondents with chimeric ethnic identity were
able to identify which component(s) of their self (their heart, mind,
actions, and physicality) changed during the migration process. During
this transition each component was associated with a particular ethnic
‘identity (Filipino or French). This resulted in a “mixed,” “dual,” “half-
half,” identity within a collective ethnic self, which reflects the complex
psychology of the 1.5 generation. At the root of this complexity are the
particular life courses of these migrants, that is, their socialization and
spatial movements between two different societies. It is interesting to note
that none of the respondents defined themselves solely as “French” despite
the fact that they have resided in France for an average of eight years, an
observation that has also been reported for other immigrants, notably of
the first generation, who feel primarily, but not completely, French (see
Attias-Donfut and Wolff 2009}.
What distinguished the 1.5 generation Filipinos in this study from their
counterparts of different national origins is the general absence of conflict
or hesitation during identity formation. The absence of a colonial past
linking the Philippines with France and the assimilationist attitude’ of the
latter towards its immigrants, both contribute to the positive self-
construction of the migrants interviewed. France offers respondents the
possibility of social incorporation through schooling regardless of their
migration status, through the learning of the French language, and finally
through access to French citizenship. Despite the bumpy social adaptation
process, the respondents in this study felt welcome in their new country.
It is important to keep in mind that their ethnic identity is fluid, flexible,
and continuously developing, a temporality shaped, among other factors,
by their resettlement experiences and their resulting legal status in France.
Their ethnic identity also has a relational character, in that its develop-
ment is always determined and shaped by both individual and social
factors. Future changes in the way the host country receives Filipino
migrants will undoubtedly influence their self-image. Analyzing the expe-
riences of 1.5 generation migrants underscores the importance of a
phenomenological approach that highlights the subjective experiences
and perspectives of young people. This approach makes for a deeper
understanding of the connections that 1.5 generation Filipinos in France
have with the larger Filipino immigrant population, with other ethnic
immigrant groups in the country, and with the larger French society, and
how those encounters shape their identity construction.
62 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT
Acknowledgements
This study was part of a larger research project on 1.5 generation Filipinos in
several countries including France, supported by the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science and coordinated by Itaru Nagasaka of Hiroshima
University. A first version of this article was presented at the 7th EuroSEAS
Conference in Lisbon in July 2013.
Notes
1 In French official statistics, the term “immigrant” refers to persons born as
non-French in a foreign country and currently residing in France (regardless
of their present nationality), while “foreigners” are foreign nationals living in
France, regardless of their place of birth (see INSEE 2012a and 2012b).
2 In 2011, 81 percent of more than $0,000 Filipino migrants in France were of
irregular status (CFO 2012}, that is, either undocumented or with expired
visas.
3 The focus on Filipino Christians limits, in some ways, the results of the study,
as 1.5 generation Filipino Muslims may have different migration experiences
and identity construction processes as a result of their religious and ethno-
linguistic belongings.
All names have been changed to protect the privacy of the respondents.
tA
This respondent was brought to the Philippines by her mother at the age of
three and returned to France ten years later.
6 Three respondents who declared themselves as “secular” were formerly active
churchgoers, and their Filipino friends served as their link to the Filipino
immigrant population since they did not participate in any of the numerous
Filipino regional associations in Paris. , Equipe TeO. 2010: Trajectoires et origines. Enquéte sur la diversité des popula-
7 He is known as the national hero of the Philippines and lived in Paris during
the period 1889-1891 (Ravin 2001).
8 France pursued an “assimilationist” policy in the 1960s and 1970s, and an
“integrationist” policy during the latter part of the 1980s when the govern-
ment allocated resources to organizations that “encouraged immigrants to
abide by the law but retain their distinctive cultures and traditions” (Zappi
2003}. But since the early 2000, France has been reviving its “assimilationist”
policy (2003).
References
Allensworth, E. M. 1997: Earnings mobility of first and “1.5” generation
Mexican-origin women and men: a comparison with US-born Mexican
Americans and non-Hispanic whites. International Migration Review 31(2),
386-410.
Attias-Donfut, C. and Wolff, F-C. 2009: Le destin des enfants d’immiigrés. Un
désenchainement des générations. Paris: Stock,
Avenel, C. 2006: Quelle autonomie pour les jeunes issus de immigration maghré-
bine? In C. Bidart {(ed.), Devenir adulte aujourd’hui: Perspectives
internationales, Paris: UHarmattan, 211-228.
Bartley, A. and Spoonley, P. 2008: Intergenerational transnationalism: 1.5 gener-
ation Asian migrants in New Zealand. International Migration 46(4), 63-84.
Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 63
Billiez, J. 1985: La langue comme marqueur Cidentité. Revue européenne des
migrations internationales 1(2), 95-105.
Benesch, S. 2008: “Generation 1.5” and its discourses of partiality: a critical
analysis. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 7(3-4), 294-311.
Brinbaum, Y. and Kieffer, A. 2009: Les scolarités des enfants d’immigrés de la
sixiéme au baccalauréat: différenciation et polarisation des parcours.
Population 64(3), 561-610.
Buenavista, T.L. 2007: Movement from the middle: Pilipina/o 1.5 generation
college student access, retention, and resistance, Unpublished Ph.D disserta-
tion. University of California, Los Angeles.
CFO. 2013: Stock estimate of overseas Filipinos as of December 2011.
Commission on Filipinos Overseas. www.cfo.gov.ph/images/stories/pdf/
StockEstimate2012.pdf (Accessed February 5, 2013).
Chavez, L. R. 2013: The Latino threat: constructing immigrants, citizens and the
nation. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2nd Edition.
Coe, C., Reynolds, R. R., Boehm, D. A., Hess, J.M. and Rae-Espinoza, H. 2011:
Everyday ruptures. Children, youth, and migration in global perspective.
Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press.
Danico, M. Y. 2004: The 1.5 generation. Becoming Korean American in Hawai'i.
Honolulu, Hawai’: University of Hawai’i Press.
Dreby, J. 2012: The burden of deportation on children in Mexican immigrant
families. Journal of Marriage and Family 74(4), 829-845.
Echardour, A. 1996: La vie professionnelle des immigrés originaires du Portugal.
Espace, Populations, Sociétés 2-3, 421-430.
tions en France. Premiers résultats, 2010. In Documents de travail. Mayenne:
INED, INSEE, & TeO (Trajectoires et Origines) group.
Estrada, G. 2007: As flip as I want to be: ruminations on the Filipino American
experience, Lincoln, Nebraska: iUniverse.
. 2003: I have tasted the sweet mangoes of Cebu. Lincoln, Nebraska:
iUniverse.
Foucault, M., Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds) 1991: The Foucault
effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fresnoza-Flot, A. 2014: Un double ancrage: liens familiaux et insertion social des
enfants d’immigrés philippins en France. Enfances Familles Générations.
Online before publication. http://efg.inrs.ca/index.php/EFG/ _article/view/
296/192.
———~, 2013: Méres migrantes sans frontiéres. La dimension invisible de Pimmi-
gration philippine en France. Paris: UHarmattan.
. 2010: The Catholic Church in the lives of irregular migrant Filipinas in
France: Identity formation, empowerment and social control. The Asia Pacific
Journal of Anthropology 11(3-4), 345-361.
Gabizon, C. 2010: La formidable réussite scolaire des enfants d’Asiatiques. Le
Figaro, October 19, hrtp://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2010/10/19/
01016-20101019ARTFIG00648-la-formidable-reussite-scolaire-des-enfants-
d-asiatiques.php (Accessed April 19, 2011).
64 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT Single or Chimeric Ethnic Identity? | 65

Gilroy, P. 2000: Between camps. London: Penguin. Lev Ari, L. 2011: Social identification among Israeli migrants’ descendants in
. 1993: The black Atlantic: modernity and double consciousness. London: North America: is it diasporic, assimilative or transnational? http://www, inter-
Routledge. disciplinary.net/wp-contenv/uploads/2011/OG/aridpaperpdf (Accessed April
Goffman, E. 1963: Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. 21, 2012).
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Levitt, P. and Glick Schiller, N. 2004: Conceptualizing simultaneity: a transna-
Gonzales, R., Sudrez~Orozco, C. and Dedios-Sanguineti, M. C. 2013: No place to tional social field perspective on society, International Migration Review
belong: contextualizing concepts of mental health among undocumented youth 38(145), 595-629.
in the United States. American Bebavioral Scientist 57(8), 1174-1199. Malewska-Peyre, H. 1988: Les stratégies identitaires des jeunes. In Le travail
Harklau, L., Losey, K. and Siegal, M. (eds) 1999: Generation 1.5 meets college social et les enfants de migrants. Paris: VHarmattan & CIEML
composition: issues in the teaching of writing to US-educated learners of ESL Meurs, D., Pailhé, A. and Simon, P. 2006: The persistence of intergenerationa!
(English as Second Language), Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. inequalities linked to immigration: Labour market outcomes for immigrants
and their descendants in France. Population 61 (5-6), 645-682.
Holloway-Friesen, H. 2008: The invisible immigrants: revealing 1.5 generation
Mozére, L. 2005S: Filipina women as domestic workers in Paris. A transnational
Latino immigrants and their bicultural identities. Higher Education in Review
labour market enabling the fulfilment of a life project? In E. Spaan, FE Hillmann
_ 35, 37-66.
_and T. V. Naerssen (eds), Asian migrants and European labour markets.
Hutnyk, J. 2005: Hybridity. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28{1), 79~102.
‘Patterns and processes of immigrant labour market insertion in Europe,
INSEE. 2012a: Immmigré. Institut national de la statistique et des études écono- Oxford and New York: Routledge.
miques. http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/default.asp?page=definitions/ Narula, R. 1999: Cindereila need not apply. A study of paid domestic work in
immigre.htm (Accessed April 17, 2012). Paris. In J. H. Momsen (ed.), Gender, migration and domestic service, London:
——. 2012b: Etranger. Institut national de la statistique et des études écono- Routledge.
miques. http://www.insee. fr/fr/methodes/default.asp?page=definitions/ Noiriel, G. 1988: Le creuset francais: Histoire de Vitmmigration XIXe~X
Xe siécle.
etranger.htm. (Accessed April 17, 2012), Paris: Seuil.
.2010a: Répartition des étrangers par nationalité en 2010. Paris: Institut Ong A. 1996: Cultural citizenship as subject-making. Cultural Anthropology
national de Ja statistique et des études économiques. http://www.insee. 37(5), 737-762.
fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=O8cref_ id=etrangersnat (Accessed October 31, Pairault,T. 1995: Lintégration silencieuse: La petite entreprise chinoise en France.
2013). Paris: VHarmattan.
——, 2010b: Répartition des immigrés par pays de naissance en 2010. Paris: Park, L. $.H. 2005: Consuming citizenship. Children of Asian immigrant entre-
Institut national de ia statistique et des études économiques. preneurs. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
http:/Avww.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?ref_id=immigrespaysnais (Accessed -Portes, A., Ferndndez-Kelly, P. and Haller, W. 2009: The adaptation of the immi-
October 31, 2013). grant second generation in America: theoretical overview and recent evidence.
Ip, D. and Hsu, R. J. C. 2006: Transnationalism and gendered identity: the case Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35(7), 1077-1104.
of the “one and a half generation” Taiwanese migrants. Asian Studies Review Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R.G. 2001: Legacies: the story of the immigrant second
30, 273-288. generation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Kirszbaum, T., Brinbaum, Y., Simon, P. and Gezer, E. 2009: The children of immi- Ravin, T..B. M. D. 2001: José Rizal. Philippine national hero and ophthalmolo-
grants in France: the emergence of a second generation. Florence: UNICEF gist. Archives of Ophthalmology 119{2), 280-284.
Remennick, L. 2003: The 1.5 generation of Russian immigrants in Israel between
Innocenti Research Centre.
integration and socio-cultural retention, Diaspora 12(1), 39-66.
Kozakai, T. 2000: L’étranger, Pidentité. Essai sur Pintégration culturelle. Paris:
Reyes, A. 2002: Are you losing your culture? Poetics, indexicality and Asian
Payot.
American identity. Discourse Studies 4(2), 183~199.
Lacroix, T. and Bouhet, I. 2004: La population espagnole en France. Visages d’une
Richard, }.-L. 2004: Partir ou rester ? Destinées des jeunes issus de Vimmigration.
communauté centenaire. Tome 2. (http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/
Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
00/82/06/60/PDE/LAcroix 2004 POPULATION ESPAGNOLE EN FRAN
Ritzer, G., and Goodman, D. J .2004: Modern sociological theory. New York:
CE _4.pdf). McGraw-Hill.
Lee, J. and Zhou, M. 2004: Asian American youth: culture, identity and ethnicity. Rizal, J. 2008: Letters between Rizal and family 1883. http:/Hoserizal. info/
New York and Oxon: Routledge. Writings/Letters/Family/1883-f-letters.htm#58 (Accessed February 21, 2008).
Legifrance. 1998. Loi n° 98-170 du 16 mars 1998 relativea la nationalité. Journal Rumbaut, R. G. 1994: The crucible within: ethnic identity, self-esteem, and
Officiel de la République Francaise 64, 3935. http://www. legifrance.gouv.fr/ segmented assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration
affichTexte.do?cidTexte=[ORFTEXT00000075453 i Review 28 (4), 748-794.
Lien=id (Accessed February 12, 2010). Rumbaut, R. G. and Ima, K. 1988: The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee
youth: a comparative study. Washington, DC: US Office Refugee Resettlement.
66 | ASUNCION FRESNOZA-FLOT

Santelli, E. 2001; La mobilité sociale dans l’immigration: Itinéraires de réussite CHAPTER

des enfants d’origine algérienne. Toulouse: Presses Universitaire du Mirail.
S., D. 2008: Touche pas & ma bonne! Canard Enchainé, 13 février.
Scott, S. and Cartledge, K. H. 2009: Migrant assimilation in Europe: a transna-
tional family affair. International Migration Review 43 (1), 60-89.
Silberman, R., Alba, R. and Fournier, 1. 2007. Segmented assimilation in France?
Discrimination in the labour market against the second generation. Ethnic and
Racial Studies 30{1}, 1-27. Intergenerational Conflicts
Simon, P. 2003: France and the unknown second generation: preliminary results
on social mobility. International Migration Review, 37(4), 1091-1119.
Stone, G. P. 1962: Appearance and the self. In A. M. Rose {ed.), Human behavior
in Vietnamese Families
and social processes, Boston: Houghton Miflin.
Sudrez-Orozco, M. M., Darbes, T., Dias, $.I. and Sutin, M. 2011: Migrations and
in Poland
schooling. Amnual Review of Anthropology 40, 311-328.
Thomas, W. I. and Znaniecki, F. 1958: The Polish peasant in Europe and America.
New York: Dover Publications. GRAZYNA SZYMANSKA-MATUSIEWICZ
Vallet, L. A. 1996: L’assimilation scolaire des enfants issus de |’immigration et son
interprétation: un examen sur données frangaises. Revue francaise de
Pédagogie 117, 7-27.
Warner, W. L. and Srole, L. 1945: The social systems of American ethnic groups, This essay examines intergenerational dynamics within the Vietnamese
New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
community in Poland, with a focus on the influence of the host country
Zahavi, D. 2001: Beyond empathy. Phenomenological approaches to intersubjec-
tivity. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8, S~7. culture on multiple dimensions of ethnic identity, the sense of belonging
Zanfrini, L., and Asis, M. 2006: Orgoglio e pregiudizio. Una ricerca tra Filippine of young Vietnamese in Poland, and their implications for intergenera-
e Italia sulla transizione all’eta attiva dei figli di emigrati e dei figli di immi- tional relations between immigrant parents and their offspring. It places
grati, Milan: Fondazione ISMU & FrancoAngeli. particular emphasis on Vietnamese youths who were either born and
Zappi, S. 2003: French government revives assimilation policy. Migration raised or arrived in Poland as small children (1.5 and second generation
Information Source: http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display. Vietnamese). My field research among this population, which involved
cfm?ID=165 (Accessed October 26, 2006). the conduct of a tota! of thirty-nine in-depth interviews with individuals
Zhou, M. 1997: Growing up American: the challenge confronting immigrant chil- aged eighteen to thirty, took place over different periods from 2006 to
dren and the children of immigrants. Annual Review of Saciology 23, 63-96. 2007, 2010 to 2011, and most recently in 2013. The data collected forms
the empirical basis of this chapter.

Characteristics of the Vietnamese Community in Poland

The Vietnamese community in Poland has existed since the 1950s, when
the People’s Republic of Poland began cooperating with the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, and the first cohort of Vietnamese immigrants
arrived in socialist Poland through the educational and worker exchange
programs, developed as part of the agreements among the Soviet bloc
countries. The community expanded significantly after the political
transformations following the collapse of the Soviet Bloc (1989-1991),
when Poland’s migration policy was relaxed and Vietnamese immigrants
were allowed to enter Poland more freely (Halik 2006). According to
various sources, the Vietnamese community in Poland is estimated, at
present, to be at 20,000~30,000 (Grzymala-Kazlowska 2008; Halik and