Venice Jardine and Dr. Gregory Thompson, Anthropology Department

While many theorists in Psychology have proposed various universalistic models for development, specifically ethnic identity development, and while these theories clearly have much to offer in the way scholarship on the topic of identity development, they are severely limited in their scope for the same reason that they are seemingly easy to grasp—they are problematically over-simplified. Human beings seldom fit nicely into stage theories or models, particularly when universally applied to across contexts. Especially when concerned with bi-cultural contexts and identity development, it is not plausible to attempt to reduce these complex human experiences to any one particular paradigm. In other words, these theories, which have largely been made in the West and for the West, do not easily translate to other cultural contexts. Neither culture nor development is so simple and so universal that it can be easily explained by any one-size-fits-all theory. Though I am not suggesting that stage theories be thrown out altogether since they can provide vital insights into our understanding of human behavior, I am calling for a less stratified and more dynamic way of viewing ethnic identity development as it is a phenomenon, which requires a more qualitative approach in addition to the research which has already been done to further our knowledge on this particular subject.

Throughout my research with Hmong in France and Thailand, I collected qualitative data to provide more context and understanding for what ethnic identity looks like in Hmong communities. Since Hmong across the globe do not share any one specific national identity, they are ethnic minorities in any country in which they reside. The dominant host culture, therefore, often poses a threat to the future of Hmong culture. In order to safeguard their culture against outside forces, Hmong in France and Thailand have taken action by actively seeking out opportunities to teach youth about the more essential parts of their culture. This transferring process, however, unveils interesting differences in the methods by which the different generations define, perceive, and develop their own identity as Hmong. Throughout my thesis, I argue that identity development in Hmong communities in France and Thailand does not match the Ethnic Identity Development model proposed by Jean Phinney. Rather, the perception and development of a Hmong identity differs across generations and contexts, reflecting, instead, Lifecourse Theory. Furthermore, the fear of Hmong culture ‘disappearing’ serves as an enzyme in process of transferring cultural knowledge to the younger generations, thereby solidifying Hmong identity in both the teachers and the learners.

Though there is no specific age or rite of passage set apart for one to become Hmong or begin taking on the responsibility to learn and lead in Hmong ceremonies and rituals, the community of Hmong in Le Château fit the profile of the traditional Hmong life course. The younger generations tend to delve deeper into the traditions and practices not when they are youth, but when they begin their own families and watch their parents get older. This seems to be customary for Hmong in various locations across the globe.

Ethnic identity is a deeply complex construct composed of both indicia and criteria. Similarly, ethnic identity development is not a universal or unilinear process. In order to come to a more robust and more valid understanding of how ethnic identity functions, it is imperative that we incorporate more dynamic and qualitative approaches into existent research on the topic. Though it remains to be seen whether the upcoming Hmong generations in France will follow a similar process of ethnic identity development as their progenitors, it is clear that the process of development is based not only on age, but is deeply context-dependent.