Race, Ethnicity and Family

This article focuses on the connections between race, ethnicity, and family in the context of sociological study. It explores the sociology of race, ethnicity, and family in three parts: an overview of the sociology of race and ethnicity, the history of race and ethnicity in the United States, the sociology of the family, major racial and ethnic groups in the United States, and family structures of ethnic groups living in the United States; a description of the ways in which sociologists study the effects that race, ethnicity, and family have on a wide variety of social behaviors; and a discussion of the issues associated with the US federal government's classifications of race and ethnicity. Understanding how sociologists conceptualize and study the connections between race, ethnicity, and family is vital for those interested in the sociology of family and relationships.

Keywords African American; American Indian; Asian; Ethnicity; Family; Native Hawaiian; Hispanic; Race; White

Family & Relationships > Race, Ethnicity & Family

Overview

Understanding how sociologists conceptualize and study the connections between race, ethnicity, and family is vital for those interested in the sociology of family and relationships. Common sociological questions concerning race, ethnicity, and family include the following:

• How are race, ethnicity, and family connected?
• Are different races and ethnicities associated with particular family structures?
• Do race, ethnicity, and family structure influence individual or societal development and experience?

With these questions in mind, the following is an overview of the sociology and history of race and ethnicity in the United States.

Sociology of Race & Ethnicity

Social scientists study the economic, social, and political experiences of different races and ethnicities. According to Brown, Hitlin, and Elder (2006; citing Pearlman and Waters, 2002), "ethnicity involves grouping people by geographic origins, while race—in the demographic sense . . . —involves specialized groupings by ancestry as understood through the prism of American history" (p. 412). While many sociologists differentiate between race and ethnicity, others criticize this practice, suggesting that a sociological distinction between race and ethnicity is an obsolete analytical construct that may obscure or obstruct the fluid processes of identity making and group identification (Brown, Hitlin, & Elder, 2006).

Sociologists concern themselves with both the objective and the subjective experiences of race and ethnicity, focusing on areas of inquiry such as demographics, discrimination, racism, desegregation, immigration, racial profiling, social inequality, race-based policies, pluralism, and multiculturalism. They increasingly explore how race and ethnicity affect and interact with the individual experience or practice of religion, nationality, identity, sexuality, education, income, gender roles, and family structure.

The History of Race & Ethnicity in the United States

The categories of race and ethnicity have influenced American society and scholarship since the founding of the modern state. The federal government, with the help of applied social scientists, has collected race-based statistics since the first population census in 1790. During this census, African American slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person, and American Indians were not counted. During the eighteenth century, race, which was believed to influence character, moral, intellect, and ultimately rights, was viewed as relevant and important for analysis of social, political, and economic variables. Since 1900, the US federal government has used 26 different racial terms to identify populations in the US Census.

Race and ethnicity has influenced voting, housing, education, and civil rights policy in the United States from the eighteenth century through the present. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Civil Rights movement raised public consciousness about the discrimination faced by minority groups in public and private institutions, and programs such as affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act were created to remedy race-based economic and social discrimination in America. In the twenty-first century, the definition of race no longer has connotations of rank and superiority, but the category of race remains influential in government census taking and policy making (Chiswick, 1984).

Sociology & Demographics of the Family

Sociologists study various types of family structures. The traditional nuclear family, a concept identified and named by sociologists in the 1950s, refers to a unit of family that includes two heterosexual parents and their children. Sociologists began identifying and naming alternative family structures in the 1960s and 1970s. Alternative family structures refer to non-traditional family structures such as cohabitation, gay and lesbian families, single parents, family networks, affiliated families, and communes.

In addition to sociologists, the US government also engages in significant efforts to gather data on families and define (and thus, in some respects, legitimize) certain family structures. In 2012, the US Census Bureau collected the following data about the US population's family structures. Of the total population, approximately 48 percent of American adults were married and living with their spouse. Of families with only one parent, approximately 41 percent of single parents had never married, 5 percent were widowed, 18 percent were separated, and 36 percent were divorced (Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider, 2013).

In 2011, the total population of 311.6 million people lived in 115 million discrete households. Of these 115 million households, 66.2 percent contained an officially recognized family unit. (The government defines a family as two or more people related by blood, marriage, or adoption.) A little less than half of all family households (48.8 percent) included children under the age of eighteen. That said, only 31.6 percent of family households were traditional or nuclear families with married parents and minor children. The remaining types of households were people living alone (27.7 percent of all households), two or more unrelated people living together (6.0 percent), married couples with no children under eighteen (27.3 percent), and nontraditional family structures not headed by a married couple of opposite sexes (17.9 percent) (Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider, 2013).

The number of traditional families dropped approximately 18 percentage points between 1970 and 2011. In 2012, single-mother families numbered 12.0 million, of which 10.3 million included children under eighteen; single-father families numbered 2.5 million, with 2.0 million having children under eighteen (Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider, 2013). Of all children under age eighteen, 6.2 percent live in households headed by one or more grandparent (US Census Bureau, 2012). Difficulty in gathering demographic data on families is due to reporting error, unofficial family relationships and structures, and limitations of census categories.

Major Racial & Ethnic Groups in the United States

This section describes the major ethnic groups living in the United States. The US federal government's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for establishing the standards and categories used to measure and assess race and ethnicity in America. As specified in the Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, the OMB recognizes five categories for race and two for ethnicity, which are used for federal statistics, program administration, and civil rights enforcement. The race categories are American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White; the ethnicity categories are Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino.

• American Indian or Alaska Native refers to "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment."
• Asian refers to "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam."
• Black or African American refers to "a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as 'Haitian' or 'Negro' can be used in addition to 'Black or African American.'"
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander refers to "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands."
• White refers to "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."
• Hispanic or Latino refers to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term 'Spanish origin' can be used in addition to 'Hispanic or Latino'" (Office of Management and Budget, 1997).

These categories are the product of 1997 revisions that made the following changes:

• First, the Asian or Pacific Islander category was separated into two separate categories, "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander."
• Second, the term Hispanic was changed to "Hispanic or Latino."

The 1997 revisions were undertaken in an effort to represent the demographic diversity created by the increase in immigration and interracial marriages. As a result of these revisions, respondents on federal forms have the option of selecting more than one racial designation. The newly revised standards acknowledge multiracial identities (Office of Management and Budget, 1997).

According to the 2010 US Census, the total population of the United States was approximately 308.7 million people, of whom 300.8 million lived in 116.7 million households. Approximately 223.6 million people (72.4 percent of the total population) identified as white only, 38.9 million (12.6 percent) as black or African American only, 2.9 million (0.9 percent) as American Indian or Alaska native only, 14.6 million (4.8 percent) as Asian only, 0.54 million (0.2 percent) as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander only, and 9.0 million (2.9 percent) as two or more races. In addition, 50.5 million people (16.3 percent of the total population) identified as Hispanic or Latino (US Census Bureau, 2010).

Family Structures of Ethnic Groups Living in the United States

In the United States, families of color are more likely than white families to have alternative structures such as family networks and extended households. "Family network" refers to an alternative family structure in which several nuclear families join together on a regular basis to share resources, enjoy leisure activities, and solve problems. "Extended household" refers to a household sheltering multiple generations. Extended households include two main types: upward extension and downward extension. Upward extension, which most often happens in response to the needs of elderly family, is when grandparents and other elderly relatives come to live with their adult children. Conversely, downward extension is when adult children and their offspring go to live with grandparents; this most often happens when adult children cannot maintain independent households or care for their young children alone.

The prevalence of alternative family structures among families of color in the United States is often a means of accommodating economic stress, maintaining language and traditions, or some combination of the two. For instance, sociologists have found African American families to have more extensive kinship systems than white families, which manifest in the formation of alternative family structures. In 2012, only 3.0 percent of white, non-Hispanic households were multigenerational, compared to 8.3 percent of African American households, 6.3 percent of Asian households, and 8.4 percent of Hispanic households of any race (Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider, 2013). Sociologists suggest that extended kin households including grandchildren are common among Hispanics and among recent immigrants.

While sociologists work to identify the characteristics of the family in major ethnic groups in the United States, family structures are not fixed. As various groups experience socio-economic changes, their family structures change. For instance, as immigrant groups assimilate to the United States through education, experience, and language acquisition, they are less likely to remain in extended households or other alternative family structures and more likely to accept the nuclear-family model as their own (Szinovacz, 1996).

Applications

Studies on the Effects of Race, Ethnicity, & Family Structure on Behavior

Sociologists study the connections between race, ethnicity, family structure, and multiple social variables and behaviors. For instance, they may examine how race, ethnicity, and family structure affect high school matriculation rates, health, job choice, marriage rates, et cetera. This section describes three sociological investigations into the effects that race, ethnicity, and family structure have on social behaviors such as cigarette smoking, alcohol use, violence, suicide, and sexual intercourse. The studies described below all use data from national survey projects. In many instances, such studies are the intermediary step between national data collection and social policy decisions regarding family and education programs and funding.

Robert Blum

Robert Blum studied the effects that race, ethnicity, income, and family structure have on five known risk behaviors: adolescent cigarette smoking, alcohol use, violent behaviors, suicide, and sexual intercourse. Blum used the data collected by the National Study of Adolescent Health, a longitudinal study of 10,803 white, black, and Hispanic adolescents in grades 7 through 12. Blum found that white, black, and Hispanic youth with similar family structures and family incomes had a seven to ten percent difference in their tendency to engage in risk behaviors. Blum concluded that socioeconomic status and family structure are stronger indicators for adolescent risk behaviors than race and ethnicity (Blum, 2000).

Todd Michael Franke

Todd Michael Franke studied the connections between race, ethnicity, family structure, and violent behaviors in adolescents. Franke sought to understand how race, ethnicity, and family structure increase or decrease the likelihood of adolescents engaging in violent acts. Franke also considered the effects of family cohesion and family characteristics. While family characteristics are related to other important personal and community factors, Franke did not examine individual, peer, school, or neighborhood/community factors. He used data from the National Study of Adolescent Health, which gathers data about respondents' health and health-related behaviors, emotional well-being, and family and school environment. Incidents and measures of violence, including participation in a physical fight, injuring someone, using a gun or knife, and shooting or stabbing someone, were all self-reported. Franke found that there was a significant difference between race or ethnicity, family structure, and propensity for participation in adolescent violence. The study suggests that family cohesion, more than race or ethnicity, is a strong protective variable or factor against adolescent violence (Franke, 2000).

John Santelli

John Santelli studied the connections between socioeconomic status (SES), family structure, race, ethnicity, and adolescent sexual behavior. Santelli used data from the 1992 Youth Risk Behavior Survey of the National Health Interview Survey. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey gathers data about household characteristics and demographics and adolescent behavior. The study showed that residing in a two-parent family, self-identifying as white, and having parents with greater education levels were all factors associated with limited sexual activity among adolescents. The data did not support any clear connections between adolescent sexual behavior and race, and Santelli found no significant differences in the rates of pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (Santelli, 2000).

Issues

Uses of Racial & Ethnic Data Standards

The categories of race and ethnicity are social constructs defined by individuals, groups, and governments. The US federal race and ethnicity data standards and categories were initially developed in 1977 for multiple reasons. The data standards are intended to:

• serve as "a common language for uniformity and comparability in the collection and use of data on race and ethnicity";
• "provide consistent data on race and ethnicity throughout the Federal Government";
• aid the government in its efforts "to enforce civil rights laws" by "monitor[ing] equal access in housing, education, employment, and other areas, for populations that historically ha[ve] experienced discrimination and differential treatment because of their race or ethnicity";
• and be used in the general census as well as "in household surveys, on administrative forms (e.g., school registration and mortgage lending applications), and in medical and other research" (Office of Management and Budget, 1997).

Challenges to the Use of Racial & Ethnic Clarifications

While the US federal government has numerous reasons for classifying its population by race and ethnicity, the continued use of race and ethnicity classification by the federal government is challenged by social scientists. The American Anthropological Association (AAA) challenges and opposes the racial and ethnic classifications used in US statistics. In the American Anthropological Association's "Response to OMB Directive No. 15," the association recommends the elimination of the term "race" from the OMB's Directive No. 15 and from the 2010 Census, though this recommendation was not carried out. The American Anthropological Association argues that more specific social categories such as "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" are better suited for scientific purposes and have fewer negative connotations than "race" (American Anthropological Association, 1997).

The use of race-based statistics and racial and ethnic classifications by the federal government raises numerous ethical and policy issues. The standards developed by the OMB are criticized for two main reasons.

First, the standards have had far wider influence than intended or explicitly allowed. While the OMB asserts that the data standards are not used to determine policy or eligibility, those standards have far-reaching influence on and implications for public policy. Although the data standards were developed to support and enable the civil rights legislations of the 1960s, the classification system also influences federal funding allocations, congressional districts, enforcement of equal-access provisions, and public health research and practice (Bennett, 1997).

Second, the continued use of race, an evolving and self-identified label, as a classification tool is questioned. Analyses of race, which is understood to be a socially constructed category, is somewhat illusory and shifting. While multiracial heritage or identity is the growing reality and experience for many in American society, it is a challenge to a census-taking process that requires fixed categories. Racial and ethnic categories are chosen to correspond to previous incarnations of the US Census, to reduce chances for racial tensions and fragmentation, and to reduce the creation of overly small and specialized samples. There is no reporting option for all racial combinations, nor is there a multiracial category. The reporting categories are limited and fixed while the experience of race is expansive and fluid. While the OMB recognizes that "the categories represent a social-political construct designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country, and are not anthropologically or scientifically based," fixed race-based categories continue to characterize US Census data (Office of Management and Budget, 1997).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, the categories of race and ethnicity will evolve as individuals, groups, and societies change over time as a result of technology, globalization, environmental change, and social conflict. The social sciences will likely lead the way in exploring how the categories of race and ethnicity influence individual and group identities and behaviors.

Terms & Concepts

Alternative Family Structure: A nontraditional family structure, such as unmarried cohabitation, gay and lesbian families, single parents by choice, family networks, affiliated families, and communes.

American Indian: A racial category that refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Asian: A racial category that refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Black or African American: A racial category that refers to a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

Downward Extension: The growth of a household that occurs when adult children and their offspring come to live with grandparents.

Ethnicity: The identification of population groups characterized by common ancestry, language, and customs.

Family: A group of two or more persons connected by blood, marriage, or adoption.

Family Networks: An alternative family structure in which several nuclear families join together on a regular basis to share resources, enjoy leisure activities, and solve problems.

Hispanic or Latino: An ethnic category that refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or other South or Central American or Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Nuclear Family: The traditional unit of family that includes two married parents of the opposite sex and their children.

Race: A social category or construction that is treated as distinct due to a combination of physical characteristics and social and historical context.

Sociology: The scientific study of human social behavior, human association, and the results of social activities.

Upward Extension: The growth of a household that occurs when grandparents or other elderly relatives come to live with their adult children.

White: A racial category that refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Bibliography

American Anthropological Association. (1997). Response to OMB Directive 15: Race and ethnic standards for federal statistics and administrative reporting. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm

Beck, R.W. & Beck, S.H. (1989). The incidence of extended family households among middle-aged black and white women: Estimates from a 5-year panel study. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 147-168. Retrieved January 22, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=13543856&site=ehost-live

Bennett, T. (1997). Racial and ethnic classification: Two steps forward and one step back? Public Health Reports, 112, 477-481.

Blum, R., Beuhring, T., Shew, M., Bearinger, L., Sieving, R., & Resnick, M. (2000). The effects of race/ethnicity, income, and family structure on adolescent risk behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1879-1884. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3823345&site=ehost-live

Brown, J., Hitlin, S., & Elder, G. (2006). The greater complexity of lived race: An extension of Harris and Sim. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 411-431. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20754132&site=ehost-live

Butler-Sweet, C. (2011). "Race isn't what defines me": Exploring identity choices in transracial, biracial, and monoracial families. Social Identities, 17, 747–769. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=66286089&site=ehost-live

Chiswick, B., & Chiswick, C. (1984). Race and public policy: The statistical connection. Challenge, 27, 51. Retrieved September 14, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=6145343&site=ehost-live ..FT-Cichy, K. E., Stawski, R. S., & Almeida, D. M. (2012). Racial differences in exposure and reactivity to daily family stressors. Journal of Marriage & Family, 74, 572–586. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=75914895&site=ehost-live

Franke, T. (2000). Adolescent violent behavior: An analysis across and within racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 8(1/2), 47-70. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3611180&site=ehost-live

Hooper, L. M., Tomek, S., Bond, J. M., & Reif, M. S. (2015). Race/ethnicity, gender, parentification, and psychological functioning: Comparisons among a nationwide university sample. Family Journal, 23, 33–48. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=99752734&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Limb, G. E., Shafer, K., & Sandoval, K. (2014). The impact of kin support on urban American Indian families. Child & Family Social Work, 19, 432–442. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=98742212&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Murry, V., Smith, E., & Hill, N. (2001). Race, ethnicity, and culture in studies of families in context. Journal of Marriage & Family, 63, 911. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5540443&site=ehost-live

Office of Management and Budget. (1997). Revisions to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg%5F1997standards/

Pearlman, J., & Waters, M. C. (Eds.). (2002). The new race question: How the Census counts multiracial individuals. New York: Russell Sage.

Santelli, J., Lowry, R., Brener, N., & Robin, L. (2000). The association of sexual behaviors with socioeconomic status, family structure, and race/ethnicity among US adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1582-1588. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3620388&site=ehost-live

Szinovacz, M. (1996). Living with grandparents: Variations by cohort, race, and family structure. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 16, 89-123.

US Census Bureau. (2010). Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC%5F10%5FDP%5FDPDP1

US Census Bureau. (2012). Table C4: Children with grandparents by presence of parents, sex, race, and Hispanic origin for selected characteristics: 2012. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2012.html

US Department of State. (2008). US society census & demographics. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://usa.usembassy.de/society-demographics.htm

Vespa, J., Lewis, J. M., & Kreider, R. M. (2013). America's families and living arrangements: 2012. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf

Suggested Reading

Collins, P. (2001). Like one of the family: race, ethnicity, and the paradox of US national identity. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 24, 3-28. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6109959&site=ehost-live

Gavazzi, S., Bostic, J., Lim, J., & Yarcheck, C. (2008). Examining the impact of gender, race/ethnicity, and family factors on mental health issues in a sample of court-involved youth. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 34, 353-368. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=33246382&site=ehost-live

Patterson, J. (1995). Race relations and the "underclass" in modern America: Some historical observations. Qualitative Sociology, 18, 237-262. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=10954214&site=ehost-live

Pilgeram, R. (2012). Social sustainability and the white, nuclear family: Constructions of gender, race, and class at a Northwest farmers' market. Race, Gender & Class, 19(1/2), 37–60. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77704032&site=ehost-live

Wilde, M., & Danielsen, S. (2014). Fewer and better children: Race, class, religion, and birth control reform in America. American Journal of Sociology, 119, 1710–1760. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=97175280&site=ehost-live&scope=site