The Political Consequences of Racialized Ethnic Identities

• Published date: 01 December 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129231181079
• Author: Kimberly Cardenas,Heather Silber Mohamed,Melissa R. Michelson
• Date: 01 December 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Political Research Quarterly

2023, Vol. 76(4) 1857–1871

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129231181079

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

The Political Consequences of Racialized

Ethnic Identities

Kimberly Cardenas

1

, Heather Silber Mohamed

2

, and

Melissa R. Michelson

3

Abstract

Racial classif‌ications are a social construct with no basis in biology; yet, race is an omnipresent and powerful factor in U.S.

politics, shaping electoral boundaries, disbursement of resources, and political alliances (Omi and Winant 1994, Haney

López 1994). Race, then, is a malleable construct wielded by varying interests, with racial def‌initions changing in response

to social and political battles. Some new immigrant groups initially classif‌ied as not white have been reclassif‌ied as white

over time, thereby benef‌itting from associated legal, economic, and sociopolitical privileges. More recently, however,

some Latinos have sought recognition as a distinct non-white racial group, in acknowledgment of the racialization of their

identities over time. We seek to better understand who is most likely to support a racialized Latino identity, and the

political consequences of this choice. Using data from the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey, we test

whether individuals who believe that a Latino identity is a racial identity are also more likely to be interested in and

engaged in politics. We also examine the extent to which support for a racialized Latino identity is associated with

progressive attitudes on racial issues.

Keywords

Latinos, identity, race, racialization, political behavior, coalitions

Racial classif‌ications are a social construct with no basis

in biology; yet, race is an omnipresent and powerful factor

in U.S. politics, shaping electoral boundaries, disburse-

ment of resources, and political alliances. American so-

ciety has “guarded the privilege of Whiteness,”through

policies such as anti-miscegenation and one-drop (hy-

podescent) laws (Haney López 1996). However, racial

def‌initions have changed over time in response to social

and political battles. New immigrant groups initially

classif‌ied as not white, for example, Polish, Irish, Cath-

olics, and Italians, have been reclassif‌ied as white over

time, and have benef‌ited from the associated legal, eco-

nomic, and sociopolitical privileges of whiteness in-

cluding citizenship and the right to own land (Lajevardi

et al. 2019;Omi and Winant 1994,2004;Tehranian 2008).

Immigrants from Latin America have been treated as an

exception in the U.S. racial classif‌ication system, with

Latino identity considered an ethnicity rather than as a

race. Yet,most Americans understand Latinos to belong to

a separate and identif‌iable group that is phenotypically

distinct from the majority white population in the United

States (Telles and Ortiz 2008), and anti-Latino prejudice

and discrimination are well documented (Chavez 2008,

Farris and Silber Mohamed 2018). Some Latinos respond

to this political reality by embracing a white identity

(Beltr´

an 2021,Jim´

enez 2009,Guti´

errez 1995).

This strategy recognizes the legal, economic, and

sociopolitical privileges historically associated with

whiteness (Haney López 1994). The 1790 Naturalization

Act restricted naturalization (and thus voting and other

rights) to “free white persons.”Many states allowed only

white citizens to own or lease land. These restrictions

stayed in place, with only minor adjustments for African

Americans after slavery was abolished, until the

McCarran–Walter Act of 1952. In restricting naturaliza-

tion to whites, the U.S. government laid the foundation for

Latino groups to be classif‌ied as white. The 1848 Treaty of

1

Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia, PA, USA

2

Department of Political Science, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA

3

Department of Political Science, Menlo College, Atherton, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kimberly Cardenas, Department of Political Science, University of

Pennsylvania, 133 S 36th St, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6243, USA.

Email: kjc9@sas.upenn.edu