The Unchosen Me: Race, Gender, and Identity among Black Women in College

2. The Unchosen Me: The Intersection of Opportunity, Privilege, and Choice

c h a p t e r t w o We would pull ourselves up by our bootstraps if only we had boots. —Martin Luther King Jr. (1968) Are all identities created equal? Beverly Tatum (2000) argues that in American society some identities, namely, those associated with Whiteness, are privileged over others. If this is the case, who has the power to determine which identities are privileged? In a nation built on notions of meritocracy, such as the United States, there is an inherent assumption of equality of opportunity—if one works hard, one will earn opportunities—particularly related to issues of educational opportunity (Lemann, 1999; Turner, 1960). Those scholars employing the input and outcome perspectives on race have examined issues of opportunity and equality (Blau, 2004; Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Feagin, 1991; Lee & Burkam, 2002; Massey, Charles, Lundy, & Fischer, 2003; Omi & Winant, 1994). Yet, can equal opportunity coexist among unequally privileged identities? Tackling the issues of identity, perceptions of choice related to identity, and perceptions of opportunity within the context of higher education, this theoretical chapter raises the question: Does one have choice regarding identity? If choice of identity does exist on some level, does everyone have equal choices, or are there barriers to choice for some? I argue that all do not have equal access to alternatives, particularly alternative identities—calling into question the notion of choice related to identity. Choice is an integral part of equality. If there are The Unchosen Me The Intersection of Opportunity, Privilege, and Choice 26 t h e u n c h o s e n m e fewer alternatives for some, there are fewer choices. If one can better understand the inequality of choice, one can gain further insight into ways to ameliorate inequality. Since identities are integral to the process of widening behavioral choices with regard to opportunities, then if one can better understand the inequality of choice related to the development of identities, one can better understand inequality of opportunity. That is, if some perceive there to be fewer choices regarding who they can become, they may have fewer opportunities or a perception of fewer opportunities. I argue below that identity choice—and subsequently , choice of opportunity—is constrained, or limited, due to racialized and gendered categories. I employ a sociological notion of identity that places interaction at the center—interaction between one’s self, other people, and the larger social structure. This interaction-based notion of identity allows for a deeper consideration of the concepts of race and gender as phenomena that are created through interaction. A deeper understanding of the creation of race and gender could provide insight into ways to transform the inequalities associated with these categories. This chapter provides an alternative, complementary framework for understanding college student development.1 This addition more centrally considers the social structure and the way existing social inequalities outside of higher education may influence the experiences of students, particularly underrepresented students, within higher education—namely, through a concept that reveals those identities or aspects of identities that are imposed, or experienced as not chosen. This has important consequences for policies and practices aimed at supporting underrepresented students since it could allow for a more thorough understanding of the unique issues that underrepresented students face in higher education and ways that those in postsecondary education can work to alleviate these challenges. This could inform work related to college student retention, recruitment, campus culture and climate, and pedagogy. At the very least, it might provide new theoretical insight into identity work about students in higher education while simultaneously offering a new perspective on the creation of race and gender more generally. The remainder of this book focuses on a predominantly White institution (PWI) of higher education, and thus often provides examples related to higher education. However, the concepts described here could ultimately transcend higher education and could be present in numerous settings within society writ large. t h e u n c h o s e n m e 27 the “me” and the sociological perspective of identity The sociological perspective of identity is rooted in the philosophical work of pragmatist thinkers William James (1890/1968), Charles Cooley (1902), and George Herbert Mead (1934/1967). These thinkers focused on interaction, and the tradition is aptly called “symbolic interactionism.” Mead (1934/1967), for example , examined the interaction between one’s self and society. Stryker (1980) developed these initial symbolic interactionist...