Response 3: An analysis of Betina Cutaia Wilkinson’s research

Response 3: An analysis of Betina Cutaia Wilkinson’s research

            “Perceptions of Commonality and Latino-Black, Latino-White Relations in a Multiethnic United States” by Betina Cutaia Wilkinson seeks to answer the question of how Latinos’ perception of commonality with blacks and whites is shaped. More specifically, she examines the specific contexts that structure this perception: racial, economic, and institutional contexts. In addition, Wilkinson explores the differences in perception of whites and blacks among native-born Latinos and foreign-born Latinos due to their separate histories with discrimination. By doing so, she is able to determine how each factor specifically influences perceptions of commonality in this minority group. These perceptions of commonality and competition are referred to as precursors of coalition formation (Wilkinson 2014, 906). Determining the perceptions that Latinos have of whites and blacks is important to the broader scope of understanding the disparities that the Latino community faces, as well as how sense of power can affect minority groups in the United States.

Previous research on perceptions of commonality has not reached a definitive understanding of how Latinos view non-Latinos. Wilkinson expects that nativity plays a large role in defining Latino-black and Latino-white relations. However, little research has examined how both nativity and sense of power shape Latino commonality with non-Latinos (906). Additionally, where other studies have lacked, Wilkinson “thoroughly addresses the questions posed above and takes a more contemporary, comprehensive approach to recognizing the disparities among Latinos” (906). In order to improve on past research, she attempts to deepen the understanding researchers have of the effects of the racial, economic, and institution contexts on Latino relations with blacks and whites. Wilkinson does so by identifying the very distinct and varying contexts (some of which are ignored in previous research) that Latinos live in in the United States, thus offering a more comprehensive analysis of Latinos’ perception of commonality.

Wilkinson believes that the context in which Latinos live most heavily influences their intra-race relations. In addition, she believes that the stronger their sense of power, the more likely Latinos are to have high levels of perception of commonality (908). Wilkinson draws upon both the racial threat hypothesis and the group position theory in order to support her hypotheses. The racial threat hypothesis “suggests that a growing minority population heightens the majority’s perception of a socioeconomic threat resulting in increased negative perceptions of the minority population” (905). In addition, the group position theory suggests that when a majority group feels that another group is infringing on their high social status and power, they are more likely to view this group as an opponent. In turn, the theory also suggests that the high frequency with which minorities feel disenfranchised leads them to view other groups as a competitive racial threat (905).

Wilkinson has four main hypotheses: 1) threat and racial context hypothesis, 2) threat and Latino context hypothesis, 3) threat and economic context hypothesis, and 4) threat and institutional context hypothesis. Her first hypothesis predicts that Latinos who live in predominantly white areas perceive less commonality with blacks and more commonality with whites, and that Latinos who live in predominantly black areas perceive less commonality with blacks. The second hypothesis focuses on Latinos who live in Latino dominated communities and suggests that those Latinos perceive less commonality with whites and more commonality with blacks. The Threat and economic context hypothesis predicts that when Latinos are crippled with a high-threat environment they are less likely to perceive commonality with both blacks and whites. On the other hand, those who are in a low-threat environment perceive less commonality with blacks and more commonality with whites (907). Wilkinson defines a high-threat environment as a community with a “high unemployment rate [and] high poverty rate” and a low-threat environment as a community with a “high percentage of residents who have graduated from high school” (907). Lastly, her fourth hypothesis expects that strong political representation leads to greater commonality with blacks and less commonality with whites (908).

In order to test her hypotheses, which are falsifiable, Wilkinson uses the 2006 Latino National Survey (LNS), the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), and United States Census and state congressional district data (908). The LNS assesses Latino perception of commonality by focusing on both economic and political contexts. Wilkinson defines economic context as “employment opportunities, education level, and income” and political context as “political power and representation, and governmental services” (908). Furthermore, Wilkinson analyzes the data collected through these studies by using ordered logistical regression (909). This method of analysis is used due to the nature of the dependent variable (perceptions of commonality). Overall, their data concludes that Latinos generally perceive greater commonality with other Latinos than they do with blacks and whites. Nativity does in fact influence perceived commonality, as native-born Latinos are more likely to identify as a minority group and perceive commonality with blacks than foreign-born Latinos. Additionally, Latinos’ perception of blacks is structured by context, supporting Wilkinson’s third hypothesis. However, the only context in which the data analysis supports this claim is the economic context (not racial or institutional), thus limiting the soundness of her claims. In regard to Latinos’ perception of whites, data analysis suggests that only racial and institutional contexts influence perceived commonality, not economic contexts.

While Wilkinson found some support for her hypotheses, there are a number of flaws in her study that insufficiently defend her claims. The 2006 LNS survey and the 2010 CCES study are used to defend her arguments, but she does not provide any statistical data for either (beyond sample size). The sample size of the LNS was 8,634 and the sample size for the CCES was 174. There is no possible way to determine whether or not the survey and study are sound sources of information for her data, as there could be issues with gender, age, and geographic location proportionality (to only name a few). Additionally, the language that both data sets was collected in could influence responses, as she is analyzing both native-born and foreign-born Latinos. However, there is no way to determine if this is the case without statistical data. Wilkinson did not make her intentions of using the LNS and CCES clear enough to omit specific data. The two sample sizes differ greatly and, thus, could influence data analysis in different ways. All of these flaws call into question the soundness of her data and question the little support she had for her claims.

Despite these flaws, Wilkinson’s research question contributes greatly to the overall understanding of Latino political behavior. The questions she raises and the claims she makes are excellent, but the support she offers drastically affects the reputability of those claims. It is necessary to research perceived commonality and to see how and if minority groups feel threatened by other minority groups. Especially because, as David R. Roediger (2005) states in Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White, “Management created an economics of racial inbetweeness that instructed new immigrants on the importance of racial hierarchy while leaving their places in that hierarchy open to judgment. The ways in which capital structured workplaces and labor markets contributed to the ideas that competition would be cutthroat and should be racialized” (72). The threats that racial groups perceive have been created by whites in the United States in order to solidify their position at the top of the racial hierarchy.

Additionally, I would further analyze Latino inter group relations by not only focusing on nativity, but also focusing on the various national sub groups within the Latino community. It would be interesting and beneficial to see how these sub groups interact and how specifically they interact with whites and blacks, as some Latino sub groups more closely identify with one or the other. I would also examine perception of commonality among other racial groups in order to determine how the history of racial hierarchy affects intra group relations. The racial minority groups in the United States have long faced prejudice, but, while they have commonalities, each in individual ways. As Two Reconstructions by Richard M. Valley shows, blacks have experienced political and social repression that resulted in their almost indefinite lack of representation. Because of these differences, it is important to understand how such systematic oppression affects racial intragroup relations, beyond the perspective of just Latinos.

This research has many implications for the future study of minority group perception of commonality, as well as racial alliances in the United States. Wilkinson shows that commonality is an important factor in increasing political representation for minority groups and forming beneficial coalition groups. This study is so important because the Latino population continues to grow immensely, with variances in their “nativity, social environment, opportunities for social, political progress, and racial attitudes” (913). It is clear that Latinos are an influential group and Wilkinson successfully proves the importance of her research, despite developing wholly unconvincing claims.

Work Cited

Roediger, David R. Working toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White: The strange journey from Ellis Island to the suburbs. New York: Basic Books, 2005. Print.

Valelly, Richard M. The Two Reconstructions: the struggle for Black enfranchisement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Print.

Wilkinson, Betina Cutaia. “Perceptions of Commonality and Latino–Black, Latino–White Relations in a Multiethnic United States.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 4, 2014, pp. 905–916.