RESULTS

Latinos are not monolithic in their agreement of label preferences. Both sexes equally preferred "Chicano," while more females than males preferred "Mexican American." Males preferred "Mexicano" more than females, and females preferred "Mexican" more than males. Females preferred "Latino" over males by a ratio of 2:1. Males like the label "American of Mexican descent" more than females, and more females preferred "American" than males.

There is no single self-identifier that Latinos prefer, and whatever identifier is chosen can change depending on the sociopolitical or socioeconomic environment they are in. The selection of ethnic labels may vary in various situations and over time, and an individual may use different ethnic labels rather than universally using one label.

When the generation and gender correlates are viewed in terms of label preferences, about one-third of both males and females in generations one through three preferred "Chicano," with these percentages increasing 20 percent for both sexes in generations four and five. Because the term "Chicano" is associated politically with a rising level of ethnic social consciousness and fair treatment, the assumption can be made that the increased preference for "Chicano" among the older generations of both sexes indicate the possibility for higher levels of political action and/or activists than among generations one through three. One can also argue that the older generations refuse to blandly hide their culture under that of the majority. This would indicate that while Latinos are willing to assimilate into the majority culture economically, they are not necessarily willing to subsume it politically or culturally.

When education is thrown into the self-identifier mixture, "Chicano" is again the majority preference for the highly educated Latinos of both sexes (some college and above), especially in the fourth and fifth generations.

While ethnic identity is important to Latinos in defining who they are, as a group they are following historic immigrant patterns. LEAS found there was a decline in the importance of identity to ethnicity the longer Latinos lived in the United States. In general, the more educated Latinos became, the less important ethnicity became to their identity. This is probably best reflected when Latinos are queried about their preference for an identity descriptor. Research found Latinos somewhat ambivalent about the use of a consistent and specific identifier, especially among the Mexican Americans. This group, in particular, uses several or many different descriptors that depends on a multilevel contextual use which rely on the specific social or work setting they are in and under what circumstances and purposes the setting occurs. Because outside influences suggest the descriptor used, an implication can be made that descriptors serve different purposes in different settings, i.e., the descriptor becomes political or much more specific within their ethnic community and more general in the broader society. When these same Latinos find themselves in the broader society of work or community, or when they are around elder or other Latinos for which a particular descriptor may have negative connotations, or for simplicity of understanding, they may chose a more general national origin or panethnic descriptor. In general then, one can argue that, while the concept of Latino identity and culture holds personal importance to many, the actual descriptor used does not. Females displayed more ambiguity about the degree of importance they placed on the issue of ethnicity and identity than did males.

An examination of the relationship of demographic variables to ethnic identity found that as income levels rose, the importance Latinos placed on ethnic identity decreased, both for males and females. LEAS found that, while three-quarters of first generation Latino respondents felt their identity was "very important," this level decreased the more generations Latino families had lived in the United States until, by the fifth generation, 35 percent less Latinos believed their ethnic identity was "very important" than did the first generation. On one hand, Latino respondents appear to have achieved some level of ethnic comfort in this society that is intensified by higher educational and income levels. On the other hand, Latinos overwhelmingly believe others identify them by their ethnicity, with males consistent in this belief at all age levels, while younger females not quite so definite. At higher age levels, both genders reach parity in their feelings of ethnic identification by others. For both males and females, the fifth and older generations do not feel as strongly about this question as do the earlier generations.

Latino identifying labels are not static instruments used consistently but, in fact, are under constant change depending on various cultural and social factors. For many respondents, panethnic terms were used for simplicity or when the use of more descriptive labels may not be correctly understood, either within or outside the Latino community. There are distinct regional differences in the selection of Latino descriptors. For example, Latinos from the borderlands prefer "Chicano" as an identifier, which no doubt reflects past political and discriminatory policies by the majority culture. Illinois Latinos prefer "Mexican" in the earlier generations and "Mexican American" in later generations. New York Latinos prefer "American," "Chicano," "Central American," or "Puerto Riqueño," while Floridian Latinos prefer "Latin American." Indeed, Latinos are not at all monolithic in any of the areas LEAS examined, but are, as Shorris insisted, "different and alike," relating to each other in the same way as other human beings.

As I have emphasized throughout this study, Latinos are not a homogeneous group. The one important area they all share, however, is their common Spanish language, which is the concern of the next chapter.

Latinos are a heterogeneous group with their Spanish language as the dominant linkage. Many studies mentioned earlier have portrayed a socioeconomic relationship to income and adequacy in the dominant cultures language. Middle-class LEAS respondents prove these findings accurate. Almost 40 percent of Latino respondents prefer English as their dominant language, and 92 percent prefer either monolingual English or bilingual English and Spanish. LEAS preference for monolingual Spanish averaged nine percent. Over time, and as Latino socioeconomic status improves, Latino language preferences, while bilingual, move closer to an English predominance for LEAS respondents. For many Latinos bilingualism is the only cultural entry to both the Latino and American communities, and where monolingualism does not meet the social or work requirements of many who must move between both cultures.

Education has little influence over language preference, but age demonstrated a positive correlation, especially in the 25 to 54 age groups. Most who identified with descriptors with "American" in the names preferred English to Spanish. A Cuban majority favored Spanish, while the umbrella descriptors of Puerto Ricans, Latin Americans, and Central Americans endorsed both languages equally. Those respondents identifying as Mexican or Mexicano had an equal propensity for both languages, with the remainder generally expressing a partiality for Spanish.

The above information has been presented in summary form. The entire report runs 182 pages with many more tables and a diskette containing all of the geodemographic information from which this report was compiled. The entire report is available from the library system of the University of Kansas, probably in early 1998.

I would like to thank all of the respondents from throughout the United States who made time to complete the survey as well as supplying us with their very important comments. These comments were used liberally throughout the report. Many thanks.