Pre-print of Garcés-Blitvich, P., Bou-Franch, P. & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (in press) Despierten, Latinos (‘Wake up, Latinos’): Latino Identity, US Politics and YouTube, Journal of Language and Politics. 2013

Despierten, Latinos (‘Wake up, Latinos’): Latino Identity, US Politics

and YouTube

1. Introduction

Latino scholars have argued that there is a pressing need to

create a Latino public intellectual sphere in which a myriad of

issues affecting Latinos may be discussed (e.g. Mendieta 2000;

Moya 2003). Web 2.0 sites such as Facebook and YouTube, for their

part, have been described as exceeding Habermasian expectations

of a public sphere and having the potential of becoming major

hubs for political action among their community members (Westling

2007). A “YouTubification” of politics certainly occurred during

the 2008 US presidential elections (May 2008, Author1), with

citizens enthusiastically submitting postings and commenting on

others’ postings in response to YouTube video-clips about the

elections. One of these postings featured a video-clip made up of

a collage of images of, principally, Barack Obama campaigning in

front of, or interacting with, Latino groups in the US. The

1

video-clip attracted thousands of viewings and, importantly for

our research, triggered numerous comments in which YouTubers

engaged in ethnic (mainly, Latino) identity construction as they

discussed politics. This study examines Latino identity

construction in such comments. It does so by, as advocated by

Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl & Liebhart (1999), combining close

reading of extant scholarly research on Latino identity and

analysis of the schemata underlying the social dimensions and

relationships associated with the processes of Latino identity

construction in the corpus. According to Van Dijk (1998), such

schemata allow members of a given group to provide answers to

questions such as who they are, what criteria need to be met for

membership in their group, and what kinds of relationships are

established among their group and other social groups.

The article is organized as follows. Latino identity is

first examined in the context of YouTube and within the larger

frame of US politics (section 2). The methodology adopted in our

study is next explained (section 3). Results are reported and

discussed in sections 4 and 5, respectively. Conclusions based on

these results are presented in section 6.

2

2. YouTube and US politics: constructing the Latino identity

Grove (2008) claims that this video-sharing site has become

the world’s largest town hall for political debate where voters

connect with candidates, other voters and the media, no longer

constrained by spatio-temporal barriers. Although the extent of

YouTube’s political influence along the lines described by Grove

may be difficult to prove, scholarly research has revealed a

“YouTubification of politics” coinciding with the 2008 US

primaries and presidential elections. For the first time, for

instance, all 16 one time presidential candidates used YouTube as

a platform for their campaigns (May 2008, Author1), and campaign

songs posted in YouTube achieved a high-profile in the elections

(Mar-Molinero 2010). The video-clip that triggered the comments

examined in this article constitutes a clear example of the

latter. It was posted during the US primaries and featured a

Reggaeton – a music genre closely associated with Latino youth

(Rivera 2008) - the lyrics of which (in Spanish) hailed Obama as

the best candidate for the interests of the Latino population in

the US. During the US primaries, then Democrat Senator Clinton

had been believed to be favored by this sector of the American

3

population and there were serious doubts that candidate Obama

could win the Latino vote. History proved otherwise: Obama not

only won the primaries but he also went on to win the

presidential election by 36 percentage points against Senator

McCain, a pro-reform Republican.

As the largest minority in the country, with an estimated

total of 48.4 million people (US Census Bureau), Latinos are of

prime concern to US politics. Furthermore, based on recent Census

Bureau projections, roughly 30 percent of the US population (c.

132.8 million people) will be Hispanic by the year 2050(1).

Consequently, US candidates have increased their efforts to reach

them.

Against this backdrop, it is important to note that the

number of Latino online users is growing faster than that of the

overall US online audience (comScore, http://www.comscore.com/ ) .

US candidates’ channels on YouTube and exchanges among

prospective voters in response to video-clips posted through

these channels, as the one under analysis here, are thus of

crucial significance to the US electoral process. Hence, our

study is interested in how Latinos positioned themselves as

4

members of social groups – accepting, contesting, or ratifying

their Latino ethnic identity – as they discussed politics via

YouTube comments in response to the Obama Reggaeton (OR

henceforth) posting.

An ethnic identity is understood here, following Joseph

(2004) and Nuccetelli (2007), as a group’s legacy from the past.

A common descent, a shared cultural heritage, and the history of

both their interaction with others and with the environment are

what constitute them as a people, rather than political

aspirations for autonomy. Ethnic labels referring to social

identities are fundamental in US society for comprehending

individuals’ actions and characteristics (De Fina 2000).

Discussions about the Latino ethnic identity, in particular, are

pervasive in the US context, which has been described as

“obsessed with racial/ethnic politics” (Gimenez 1992: 7). In an

interview, young Dominican-American writer Angie Cruz expresses

the same idea when she reminisces her sojourn in Europe: “One

thing that I find when I’m in Italy or France is that as soon as

you say you’re a Latina no one understands what you mean because

it is so irrelevant once you leave the identity politics context

5

of the United States” (Latorre 2007: 486). Hitlin Brown & Elder’s

(2007) work shows that, although a significant number of Latinos

see themselves as “white”, a Latino origin marks those who have

it, in the eyes of the white US majority, as non-white and

positions them as a stigmatized minority group along with African

Americans. As these authors argue “[b]eing phenotypically Latino,

in the American context, often means being on the less-powerful

side of this racial divide, regardless of how ‘white’ an analyst

considers your race” (Hitlin et al 2007: 596). In the US context,

then, the Latino identity is not only highly racialized but can

be considered a stigma along Goffman’s (1963) lines, i.e. a

physical or social attribute that devaluates an individual’s

identity.

The internet, for its part, is a site where hybrid

identities, which combine the cultures of the country of origin

and the country of adoption, can be productively constructed

(Sinclair & Cunningham 2000), and where dual identities can be

negotiated (Mitra 1998). The Social Model of Deindividuation

Phenomena (SIDE) (Reicher, Spears & Postmes 1995) postulates that

deindividuated environments – such as some on-line ones - are

6

conducive to people emphasizing their social, rather than their

individual, identities. Overall, however, little attention has

been given to the processes by which individuals establish their

identities as members of social groups within the frame of on-

line communities (Androutsopoulos 2006a). Even less attention has

been given to identity construction in migrant and diasporic CMC

contexts (Androutsopoulos 2006a/b).

YouTube provides a deindividuated interactional context

where social identity, including ethnic identity, is salient. It

is not, however, a Latino diasporic CMC context in the sense of

Androutsopoulos (2006a/b), for it does not target Latinos

primarily. Thus, for instance, the massive participation of

Latinos in the YouTube discussions triggered by the OR video-clip

on which this study is based was determined by its subject

matter. Also, a main difference between the Latino and other

migrant groups is that the latter tend to have a distinct and

recognizable national identity (e.g. Australian, German, etc.)

prior to leaving their homeland. Latinos, too, leave their

countries of origin as Salvadorians, Cubans, Mexicans and so

forth. However, they tend to become Latinos in the context of the

7

USA, as they acquire their new host culture (Mendieta 2000).

Hispanic/Latino is in fact a top down, imposed identity, one that

was created in the 1980s as a census category to refer to all

immigrants that could trace their roots back to Latin

America/Spain (2). Latinos’ current demographic and economic boom

– by 2017 their income will have grown 76% to $1.83 trillion (3)

– has also contributed to this top down identity having been

further homogenized as a market segment group by the media and

advertising agencies (García 2007, Bachman 2010).

Yet the Latino identity exhibits considerable variation,

including in terms of degrees of assimilation into the US culture

among national groups. For instance, Dominicans are seen as a

“transnational group” (Dicker 2006: 713). This allows them to

maintain ties to both their country of origin and their country

of adoption, as well as to their cultures and languages, which

poses problems for traditional views of assimilation for, as a

result of transnationalism, migrants assimilate much more slowly

into mainstream culture. And, unlike Latinos who have immigrated

to the US, US born Latinos see themselves as “belonging” in the

8

US, although they may not see themselves as purely American

(Dicker 2006).

Latino identity construction, then, is fundamentally a

political issue, both in the narrow and the broad sense of the

word political (see Gee 2005; Joseph 2006). In the former, this

is because the Latino identity was created as the result of a

political mandate; in the latter, because being ethnically

(racially) signified upon as a Latino in the US context may

fundamentally hinder one’s access to social goods that may lead

to the achievement of power, value or worth.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data

Our corpus consists of 500 consecutive YouTube comments

(totaling c. 13,000 words) sent by 365 participants as responses

to the OR posting. A small number of these comments were either

in English or contained instances of English-Spanish code-

switching, but the majority was in Spanish. Two reasons led to

our selecting the OR posting. First, it explicitly addressed the

Latino population, which made us expect many Latinos to respond

9

to it with comments. A pilot analysis of the corpus proved our

expectation correct, with most YouTubers identifying themselves

as Latinos either explicitly or implicitly, for example, by

commencing their comment in English and then code-switching to

Spanish. Second, it subject matter – the benefits for Latinos to

vote for Obama – was explicitly political. As mentioned in

Section 2, ethnic categories are central to US social discourse

in general and political discourse in particular, including that

generated in Web 2.0 environments such as YouTube text-based

discussions. We therefore also expected that the Latinos

participating in the YouTube discussion triggered by the OR

video-clip would incorporate the saliency of ethnicity into their

political discussion comments.

The corpus of unsolicited comments sent in response to the

OR posting thus provides an “unfiltered window” into Latino

identity construction in a deindividuated environment, YouTube,

in which social identity, here ethnic identity, is prominent.

3.2 Framework and Procedure

The fact that, as discussed in Section 2, the Latino

identity is constructed, instable, subject to change, and often

10

contested does not pose any problems for our study, which adopts

a social constructionist approach to identity analysis. We take

the view that “[p]articipants in social activities ‘do’ identity

work and align with or distance themselves from social categories

of belonging depending on the local context of interaction and

its insertion in the wider social world” (De Fina 2006: 372). The

Latino identity is regarded in our work as a social identity,

which is only knowable to the analyst through the understandings

displayed by participants (cf. Sacks 1995; Antaki & Widdicombe

1998). In other words, categories are locally constructed. In our

study, these local constructions take the form of YouTube

comments sent in response to the OR posting.

Without rejecting the local dimension of identity

construction, however, we concur with De Fina (2006) that

analysts should be able to link local identities to shared

ideologies and beliefs, that is, that local identities are partly

negotiated in interaction and partly achieved through shared

understanding/implicit meaning. Van Dijk’s (1998) work on

ideology and identity is important to our work in this respect.

For Van Dijk (1998), the cognitive representations of a group are

11

not the sole components of group identity. Social practices and

forms of organization, too, play a major role in its definition,

redefinition and reproduction. Cognitive representations, in

turn, are the basis of a group’s ideology. They form schemata

through which group members represent social dimensions and

social relationships: “These schemas allow members of a group to

answer questions on who they are, how they relate to members of

other groups, and what their goals and values are” (Van Dijk

1998: 129). Ideologies are therefore organized by group schemata,

each of which consists of a number of fundamental categories that

codify how people identify themselves and others as group

members. These categories organize both the constitution of

social groups and the social cognition shared by group members.

Furthermore, there is no need for these categories - and the

social practices and positions based on them –to apply to or be

recognized by all group members, only by its core members and a

significant number of its non-core, peripheral ones (Van Dijk

1998).

Van Dijk’s (1998) “schema building categories” are

conceptually similar to Wodak et al’s (1998) “matrix of thematic

12

contents”, though the latter are more discursive and are thus

more productive to our work. Wodak et al’s (1998) study of

national identity construction distinguishes among three notions,

which themselves constitute levels of analysis:

(1) “thematic contents”: a matrix of thematic contents

related to the discursive construction of national identity, such

as the linguistic construction of a common political past, the

linguistic construction of a national body, and so forth. This

matrix is devised on the basis of a critical survey of the

theoretical literature and a pilot analysis of the data.

(2) “strategies”: this refers to actions oriented toward a

goal, but not necessarily planed in detail, as strategies can

also be applied automatically. Different macro-strategies

correspond to different social macro-functions, i.e.

construction, perpetuation or justification, transformation, and

dismantling.

(3) “means and forms of realization”: different linguistic

means involved in the discursive construction of national

identity, such as lexical units and syntactic devices used to

construct sameness, uniqueness, origin, and so forth.

13

In our study we focus on (1), aiming to unveil the matrix of

thematic contents that “codify” (in the sense of Van Dijk 1998)

how contributors to the discussion triggered by the OR YouTube

posting constructed themselves and others as members of the

Latino group (4). Following Wodak et al’s (1998, 1999) work, this

aim is best achieved through four analytic stages, which

effectively combine a top-down [stage (i) below] and a bottom-up

[stages (ii), (iii) and (iv) below] approach, hence reflecting

our belief that shared political ideologies can only come into

existence and be maintained in local interactions (see also

Blackledge 2002; Worthan 2001):

(i) Conducting a critical reading of scholarly research as

the basis on which to propose a taxonomy of key thematic contents

for identity construction. In our case, this research centers

around the Latino identity and includes scholars’ own experiences

as Latinos, their philosophical or ideological positionings, and

the results of ethnographic studies on different Latino

communities.

(ii) Testing the validity of the proposed taxonomy against a

sample of the corpus (pilot analysis). In our study, this pilot

14

analysis was applied to 150 of randomly selected comments. This

analytic stage therefore entails scrutinizing part of the corpus

both to control for potential additional and/or missing thematic

contents therein and, if necessary, to revise the initial

taxonomy accordingly.

(iii) Calculating the frequency in the entire corpus with

which participants, in our case YouTubers posting comments in

response to the OR video-clip, invoke each thematic content in

the revised taxonomy. It is possible that the taxonomy be further

revised at this stage.

(iv) Discourse analysis of thematic contents.

All four analytic stages were first independently and then

jointly conducted by the authors of this study. As there may be

some overlap between thematic contents, differences concerning

assignment of stretches of discourse in the corpus to one or more

of them were resolved through discussion. For instance, when more

than one content was invoked, the relevant (part of the) comment

was assigned to the more salient content therein. Moreover, our

analysis combined quantitative and qualitative methods (5). While

the latter are widely recognized as valid in the broad area of

15

discourse and identity (De Fina, Schiffrin & Bamberg 2006,

Benwell & Stokoe 2006), they are under-developed in Latino

identity scholarship (cf. De Fina 2000, 2006).

5. Results

5.1. The Latino identity – a taxonomy based on critical reading

of extant literature and a pilot analysis of the corpus

Our critical survey of the relevant literature and pilot analysis

led to identification of six main thematic contents. These were:

I. Latino as the preferred label to refer to a pan-ethnic group

It is not surprising for issues of nomenclature to emerge as

a fundamental category in discussions of ethnic identity. As

Joseph (2004: 172) points out, it is mainly ethnic and religious

identities that, for most people, give profound meaning to the

“names” we identify ourselves by, both as individuals and as

groups. For the group here under scrutiny, that name was

principally “Latino”, hence our using it also throughout this

paper, although we acknowledge that it – and other terms used to

refer to the same population such as “Hispanic”, “Chicano”,

“NewYorican” and “Spanish”– are far from simple or

16

uncontroversial. “Hispanic”, another frequent pan-ethnic label,

was introduced in the 1980 census by the Nixon administration as

a response to the large numbers of immigrants whose roots where

in Latin America and who had Spanish as a common language.

However, many of those referred to by the Hispanic label voiced

their dissatisfaction with it from the start. Among their

complaints were that this was a top-down, government imposed

label and that it implied ties with a Spanish heritage that

millions of “Hispanics” did not share (Gines 2009). The label

Latino then surfaced as a better alternative because of its

ethnic resonances, as it connected the group of people loosely

referred by it to their common Latin American heritage, it could

be inflected for gender (Latino/s – Latina/s), and was Spanish-

language, rather than English-language, based (Casanas 2005;

Gines 2009).

Scholarly views vary considerably. Some authors appear

ambivalent regarding the terms Hispanic and Latino and often use

both interchangeably throughout their discussion (Alcoff 2000,

Gracia & De Greiff 2000, Mendieta 2000, Moya 2003, Hitlin et al

2007, Norris 2007). Others seem to prefer either the Latino

17

label (Toribio 2002; Garcia-Bedolla 2003) or the Hispanic one (De

Fina 2006, Velez-Rendon 2007). Contributors to public opinion

fora such as Casañas (2005) argue that both Hispanic and Latino

should be maintained. Yet others, such as Angie Cruz, resist any

generic labels. She states that she is opposed to being labeled a

Latino writer, which she perceives as an advertising ploy

(Latorre 2007: 486).

II. Dual identities: National versus pan-ethnic Latino identity

In addition to issues of nomenclature, the crux of the

construction of the Latino identity seems to be the tension

established between, on the one hand, preserving allegiance to

national groups and, on the other, giving it up to embrace the US

based Latino group. As the Latino identity is, within the context

of the US, highly racialized and stigmatized, US Latinos could

hypothetically be expected to opt for claiming their national

rather than a pan-ethnic Latino identity. At the same time,

though, since its creation, the Latino identity has been

“vigorously imagined into existence as a more or less coherent

community” (Moya 2003: 248), for example by marketing agencies

(Bachmann 2010).

18

US Latinos may trace their origin back to 20 plus countries

in Latin America. They may speak languages different from

Spanish. Citing sources from the mid-1990s, Campbell (1997)

reports that there are hundreds of indigenous languages still

spoken today in Latin America. Latinos may be of any racial

background, from American Indian, White, Asian to Black. Also,

they may be English monolingual, fifth generation Latinos, or

first generation, immigrant, Spanish monolingual Latinos. All

this extreme diversity is effectually erased once former

Salvadorians, Mexicans, Cubans, Dominicans, and so forth –who see

themselves as very different ethnically, culturally and racially

- are “signified upon” as Latinos as they immigrate and become

part of the US (Mendieta 2000). Therefore, positioning themselves

as Latinos may be in conflict with preserving their previous

national identities; and preserving those national identities may

stand in the way of constructing a Latino identity. Additionally,

US born Latinos, despite their allegiance to the country of

origin of their ancestors, may not be seen as “real” Mexicans,

Dominicans, and so forth because they were not born there

(Latorre 2007).

19

III. Dual identities: Constructing a pan-ethnic Latino identity

Norris (2007) argues that the national and the Latino

identities can be simultaneously constructed by fore-grounding,

mid-grounding and back-grounding the other and vice-versa.

However, other scholars argue that becoming a coherent Latino

community has been seen as an accessory to achieve political

power so as to effect progressive social change (Alcoff 2000,

Moya 2003, Norris 2007). For some authors, Latinos may not share

an essence but they do share an identity, grounded historically

in kin relationships (Maldonado-Torres 2009). Alcoff (2000

argues, along similar lines, that it is not phenotype, but

features associated with culture - such as language, religious

practices, values and ways of comportment – that better unite

Latinos. Gracia (2008) coincides with Alcoff’s view by arguing

that Latinos share a common history, European conquest and

interaction with the US, out of which a set of family

resemblances emerged.

IV. Paradoxical status of Spanish with the Latino community

Use of Spanish remains an object of ethnic pride/solidarity

amongst the Latino population but it is also seen as an obstacle

20

for upward mobility. Garcia-Bedolla (2003) tackles this paradox

in her insightful empirical study of Latino identity. She

concludes that a positive social identity is associated with

Spanish-English bilingualism within these communities. Speaking

only Spanish is seen as a weakness, but there is an expectation

that Latinos will nevertheless be fluent in Spanish. Dicker’s

(2006) study also reveals the desire to improve Spanish language

skills as a common trait of the discourse she examined. And

Velez-Rendon’s (2007) ethnographic study, for its part,

identifies the lack of confidence that – in this case – Latinas

felt towards not only their level of fluency in English but also

in Spanish.

The interest of heritage speakers in the US to learn Spanish

is also evident in the increase in Spanish as a second language

courses targeting this population in the country. Leeman and

García (2007) report that 20% of US tertiary institutions offer

this type of course. However, either Peninsular Spanish or

prestige Latin American varieties, rather than those spoken by

heritage learners, are often selected for these classes, in which

21

there is also an excessive focus on literary, rather than

everyday language usage.

Despite a widespread view that US Spanish is highly

influenced by English, Lipski (2007) argues that US Spanish

maintains its syntactic, morphological, and phonetic integrity

although it is also marked by the mutual influence that

characterizes the relationship between languages in bilingual

areas. Maintaining this integrity can be seen as a way to

maintain a Latino identity, for in the US Spanish is not related

to one specific nationality (García 2007).

V. Immigrants versus US-born Latinos

Garcia-Bedolla (2003) and García (2003) have argued that the

recent onslaught of immigrants has split the Latino community.

For example, Garcia-Bedolla (2003) reports that US-born Latinos

seek to differentiate themselves from immigrants, and the

negative stereotypes that “white America” associates with them.

Therefore, they implement a process of selective dissociation,

whereby they continue to identify with the Latino ethnic

identity, but exclude from their definition of this identity

22

those groups that “they see as perpetuating the negative image of

their group, namely immigrants” (2003: 276), who are stereotyped

as uncultured, poor, and monolingual. García (2003) describes a

similar situation in the city of Los Angeles, where she reports

an increase of factions within the Latino population created as a

result of long established feelings of uneasiness by US-born

Latino community members towards immigrants’ use of Spanish (cf.

Joseph 2004)).

VI. Latinos, Whites and Blacks – racialization of identities

As discussed above, the Latino identity is highly racialized

in the USA. Mendieta (2000) reflects on the attitudes held

towards race in the US versus those held in Latin America. In

Latin America, class – not race – is the central category. Also,

in the USA, race is about domination and exclusion, whereas in

Latin America race is about hegemony and inclusion. Furthermore,

in Latin America, contrary to the US, racial relations have been

dominated by five hundred years of mestizaje, i.e. mixing of races.

When immigrants of Latin American descent immerse themselves into

the American culture, they are “mystified and disoriented by the

American urge to racialize everybody and everything” (Mendieta

23

2000: 55). This mystification and disorientation are probably

compounded by the fact that the Latino identity is often

presented as a racial identity, despite the fact that Latinos can

be of any race (Alcoff 2000, Maldonado-Torres 2009).

Reactions to racialization by Latinos, for their part, have

varied. Either they have been vigorously denied, with Latinos

refusing to accept any category other than white, or a racialized

discourse has been used, especially by groups of young people, to

construct positive self-identities (Alcoff 2000). Yet, for

others, racial differences among Latin Americans should not be an

obstacle to creating a strong sense of in-group for Latinos in

the context of the US that will contribute to denounce injustice

and resist hegemony. Those Latinos who are white, it is therefore

argued, should embrace racialization to support those who are not

and are thus even more discriminated against (cf. Schute 2000).

Hitlin et al (2007) have argued that “Hispanic” should be

included as a choice in the census “race question”. According to

the results of their survey, for many US Latinos, “[t]he Hispanic

identity supersedes self-identification as “white” or any of the

other [race] options” (Hitlin et al 2007: 596). In the 2010

24

Census, Hispanic is not included as a race option. Instead, a

separate “ethnic question” has been incorporated to query about

possible Hispanic/Latino/Spanish origin, which is mostly used –

it is claimed – to monitor among other issues equal opportunity

employment. So, according to Hitlin et al’s findings (2007), what

may have been a top-down, imposed racial classification has come

to represent the group to which many Latinos align themselves in

the US social space regarding societally-influenced dimensions of

their social group.

5.2. Constructing the Latino identity in comments sent in

response to the OR posting

The taxonomy described in 5.1 was applied to the entire corpus

and yielded the results that we report in Table 1 and discuss

throughout this section. The left-hand column in Table 1 lists

the thematic contents relating to the Latino identity and the

right-hand column shows their frequency of use therein:

Table 1 – Main thematic contents relating to the discursive

construction of Latino identity.

25

Thematic content No. of

instances in

the corpus

I. Issues of nomenclature: Latino as preferred or

more appropriate pan-ethnic term

81

II. Dual identities: National versus pan-ethnic

Latino identity

44

III. Dual identities: Constructing a pan-ethnic

Latino identity

80

IV. Paradoxical status of the Spanish language with

the Latino community

19

V. Immigrant versus US-born Latinos 12

VI. Latinos, Whites and Blacks – racialization of

identities

48

The most frequent thematic contents in our corpus were I

(Issues of Nomenclature) and III (Construction of a Pan-ethnic

26

Term), with 81 and 80 instances, respectively. Racialization of

the Latino Identity (VI) was the next most frequently used

thematic content, with 48 occurrences. Its presence in the corpus

was quantitatively similar to that of thematic content II

(National versus Pan-ethnic Identity), which was invoked on 44

occasions. The least frequent thematic contents were IV

(Paradoxical Status of the Spanish Language within the Latino

Community), with 19 instances, and V (Immigrant versus US-born

Latinos), with 12 occurrences.

Although no additional thematic contents were identified as

a result of either the pilot analysis (section 5.1) or the

subsequent analysis of the entire corpus, several sub-categories

emerged from such analyses within thematic contents I, V and VI.

Within I, “Hispanic” and “Latino” emerged as the two key pan-

ethnic labels. Their respective frequencies of use were 20 and

61. In other words, 24.7% of all references to a preferred pan-

ethnic term for the Latino identity saw this to be “Hispanic”;

the remaining 75.3% of references opted for “Latino”. Within

thematic content V, attitudes towards Latino immigration to the

US were polarized, with positive views accounting for 42% (n=5)

27

of all instances (labeled as “pro-immigration” in our study) and

negative ones for 58% (n=7) (labeled as “against immigration” in

our study). Finally, thematic content VI manifested itself

discursively by positioning Latinos in relation to two racial

groups, which were labeled in the corpus as “Blacks” and

“Whites”. Latino identity was constructed alongside that of

Blacks on 41 occasions (85.4%) and of Whites on 7 occasions

(14.6%).

We next turn to discussing the discursive realization of

each of the main thematic contents identified in our corpus.

5.2.1 Latino as the preferred term to refer to the pan-ethnic group (Thematic Content I)

Our corpus revealed the saliency of the nomenclature

thematic content (I, n=81), with YouTubers selecting the term

Latino more frequently than any other pan-ethnic, or national

(see 5.2.2), group. This preference could be interpreted as

reflecting a way of resistance to what may be seen as a

government imposition (the label Hispanic). As Thornborrow (2001)

argues, imposition of social categories, or identity labels, on

some groups by other, more powerful groups occurs frequently. In

some cases, such identity labels are used to make moral judgments

28

on those on whom they are imposed. Since it is not always

possible for less powerful groups to control these identity-

defining categories or their accompanying cultural assumptions, a

way to resist them is “to develop their own set of categories

rather than be defined in terms used by others whose values they

do not share” (Thornborrow 2001:164).

In positioning themselves as Latinos, YouTube users in our corpus

frequently referred to the sharing of a number of features and

social goals by members of this pan-ethnic group, as illustrated

in (1):

(1) 168. coquitofred … y la realidad es que a nosotros los latinos no nos da

pereza trabajar. Hillary ha abogado mas por las causas de los latinos!

‘… and the reality is that we, Latinos, don’t shy away from

work. Hillary has supported Latino social issues more.’ (6)

In (1), coquitofred highlights the cohesiveness of the group

that s/he labels ‘Latino’ through explicit use of the inclusive

first person plural dative pronoun ‘us’ (‘a nosotros’) in a

sentence in which its usage in Spanish is emphatic rather than

grammatically necessary. This we-ness that the label Latino is

29

seen to capture for coquitofred is built not only upon a shared

work ethic but also upon social issues constructed as affecting

all Latinos (‘las causas de los latinos’).

5.2.2 Dual identities: National versus pan-ethnic Latino identity (Thematic Content II)

There were 44 instances in the corpus of thematic content II,

whereby YouTubers either avoided a commitment to a category

(Widdicombe 1998), namely the Latino social identity, or

selectively dissociated themselves from it, along the lines of

García-Bedolla (2003) (see section 5.1, V).

The following examples illustrate cases where either

commitment to the Latino social identity category is avoided (2)

or certain national groups are selectively dissociated from it

(3):

(2) 354. magicomiralles

2 bad no Guatemalans fuck obama

30

The lyrics of the song in the OR video-clip mentioned

different national groups: Salvadorians, Mexicans, Peruvians, and

so forth. However, as long as members of those groups have a

right to vote for Obama, which is what the OR video-clip

encouraged them to do, they were constructed in the song as

Latinos: as US citizens of Latin American origin. Yet in (2),

magicomiralles reacts negatively to the fact that Guatemalans are

not mentioned in the video, thus implying avoidance of commitment

to the pan-ethnic Latino term constructed in the lyric through

the other national groups listed.

(3) 438. manose

No he podido evitar leer la palabra "Spanish" en el titulo, y creanme si les digo

que el retortijon que me ha causado podria encerrarme en un hospital de por

vida.

ESTOY MUY ORGULLOSO DE SER ESPAÑOL , Y NO UN ASQUEROSO

REGGAETONERO, ASÍ QUE EMPEZAD A HABLAR CON PROPIEDAD DE UNA PUTA

VEZ. ESPAÑA ES ESPAÑA, Y AMERIC ES AMERICA

ARRIBA ESPAÑA!!!!

31

‘I couldn’t help reading the word “Spanish” in the title,

and believe you me: I was so shocked I could end at a

hospital for life.

I’M VERY PROUD OF BEING SPANISH, NOT A DISGUSTING REGGAETON-

LOVER, SO START TALKING FUCKING APPROPRIATELY. SPAIN IS

SPAIN AND AMERICA AMERICA. LONG LIVE SPAIN!’

In (3), manose positions people from Spain as different from

those of an American origin, as reflected in the latter’s

ascription to Reggaeton music, whom s/he labels “REGGAETONERO”,

or, more generally, to America. America and Spain are explicitly

separated by this YouTuber (“ESPAÑA ES ESPAÑA, Y AMERICA AMERICA.”)

alongside also explicit expression of national pride (ESTOY MUY

ORGULLOSO DE SER ESPAÑOL”, “ARRIBA ESPAÑA!!!!”).

An interesting finding within category II in our corpus

concerns those cases in which YouTubers commented on the quandary

in which Latinos are positioned if they express allegiance to

their countries of origin. An illustrative example of this is

provided in (4):

32

(4) 308. luisantonio07

After evaluating the pros and cons I am more certain that

ever that Obama has all my support. They will try to divide

us you see how the right wing machine will destroy you,

divide and conquer. Esta es nuestro chance, falta poco que digan que

los latinos somos racistas porque queremos a nuestro pais de origen Si hay

alguien que puede entender las acusaciones somos nosotros los latinos And I

hope they don't find out that in our churches we sing in

spanish and preach latino/mexico/spanish pride

‘This is our chance, shortly they’ll be saying Latinos are

racist because we love our country of origin. If anyone can

understand accusations that’s us Latinos’

In the context of the US, becoming an American implies

renouncing to heritage language and identity. Preserving those

can be deemed as “Anti-American” (7). In (4), luisantonio07

expresses this sentiment in relation to his hope that ‘they’

(presumably non-Latino US citizens) “don’t find out that in our

churches we sing in spanish and preach latino/mexico/Spanish

pride” lest this may lead to their being accused of racism.

Praying and singing in Spanish at church or preaching Latino

33

pride can be seen by “them” as subversive. The feeling that,

regardless of national groups, the non-Latino US group (the

‘them’ group) will homogenize national Latin American groups once

they arrive in the US is captured through the expression

‘latino/mexico/Spanish pride’ in (4).

5.2.3. Dual identities: Constructing a pan-ethnic identity (Thematic Content III)

In our corpus, positioning oneself as a member of a

coherent, homogeneous community (often under the Latino label)

featured almost twice as frequently (thematic content III, n= 80)

as positioning oneself as a member of a national group (thematic

content II, n=44). A typical example of this ethnic homogenizing

is provided in (5), where Emcmxxxvi urges Hispanics (his/her

label choice) to vote for Hillary Clinton, constructing them

discursively as a united, coherent group:

(5) 439. Emcmxxxvi

BUSQUE EN YOUTUBE:

Hillary Clinton and The Hispanic Vote (Spanish)

DIFUNDA A OTROS ESTE SINCERO VIDEO.

OBAMA TIENE 5 VECES MAS DE DINERO PARA PROPAGANDA

34

HILL ES NUESTRA USA GIRL ! Y MERECE NUESTRO VOTO!

Miente de lo lindo. Dise ser cristiano pero permite que les suucionen el cerero a

bebes

que podrían nacer vivos

Busque: OBAMA, DON'T KILL ME

GOOGLE: OBAMA'S CHURCH, PARA QUE VEA QUE MAS QUE A DIOS esa iglesia

rinde pleitesia al AFRICA ANTES QUE A USA !!DESPIERTEN !

‘SEARCH IN YOUTUBE:

Hillary Clinton and the Hispanic Vote (Spanish)

TELL OTHERS OF THIS SINCERE VIDEO.

OBAMA HAS 5 TIMES MORE MONEY FOR PROPAGANDA

HILL IS OUR USA GIRL! AND DESERVES OUR VOTE!

He lies all the time. He says he’s a Christian but supports

suctioning babies’ brains babies that could be born alive.

Search: OBAMA, DON’T KILL ME

GOOGLE: OBAMA’S CHURCH, AND YOU’LL SEE THAT RATHER THAN GOD

that church worships AFRICA RATHER THAN USA. WAKE UP!!’

In (5) a reason for the pan-ethnic group constructed by

Emcmxxxvi not to vote for Obama is his being pro-abortion, which

35

conflicts with his self-proclaimed adherence to Christian values.

Religious considerations, such as this, constituted one of the

two key features mentioned by YouTubers in our corpus behind the

cohesiveness of the Latino pan-ethnic group (8) The other one,

which we illustrated in relation to thematic content I, was a

strong work ethic.

5.2.4. Paradoxical status of Spanish with the Latino community (Thematic Content IV)

The paradoxical status of Spanish within the Latino

community surfaced relatively infrequently in our corpus, with

only 19 occurrences. In all instances, though, knowledge of

Spanish was regarded as a very important and positive trait of

the Latino identity: Latinos should know how to speak and write

Spanish well. Only in two cases was English/Spanish bilingualism

regarded as an essential feature of educated Latinos. Example (7)

illustrates the importance of Spanish language knowledge as a

Latino identity trait in our corpus, while also constructs some

of the paradoxical aspects of such knowledge:

(6) 378. waniyo

36

¡Aprende a eCSRibir en castellano sin errores de ortografía! ¡Por el bien de

nuestra cultura!

‘Learn to WRITE in Spanish without spelling mistakes! For

the sake of our culture!’

Waniyo exhorts the author of a previous posting to learn to spell

in Spanish for the sake of a shared (‘nuestra’ / ‘our’) culture –

that is, (orthographic) knowledge of Spanish is seen as a goal

towards which all Latinos should strive:

A similar contrast between English-Spanish bilinguals and

Spanish monolinguals as ‘preparados’ (educated) Latinos, or

otherwise, is established by cacmxliii in (8).

(7) 483 cacmxliii

Hispanicos preparados Traduzcan a los no bilingües!

NO regalemos USA A LOS LOBOS

‘Educated Hispanics. Translate for those who are not

bilingual!

Let us NOT throw the USA to the wolves.’

37

Example (8), furthermore, illustrates a finding in our

corpus that contrasts with previous Latino scholarship on the

issue of attitudes towards monolingualism / bilingualism amongst

first generation Latino immigrants in the US. Both García-Bedolla

(2003) and García (2003) have argued that second/third/fourth

generation Latinos see the lack of English linguistic ability on

the part of immigrants (first generation Latinos) as a stigma and

a choice, i.e. they refuse to learn the English language, which

prevents their upward mobility and reflects badly on the whole

community. This attitude did not come up in our corpus. In these

and other instances in which YouTubers posted (part of) a comment

in English, they asked for fellow bilingual YouTubers to

translate it so that Spanish monolinguals could follow it. This

was always done without any explicit or implicit criticism

towards the latter group of Latinos.

YouTubers’ positionings with respect to the Spanish language

by Latinos in our corpus were therefore on the whole similar to

those found in ethnographic studies. With the exception of

attitudes towards first generation immigrants’ Spanish

38

monolingualism, they confirmed knowledge of Spanish as a

particularly important trait associated with the Latino identity.

5.2.5. Immigrants versus US-born Latinos (Thematic Content V)

In our corpus the immigrant versus US-born thematic content

was the least frequently invoked (cf. Table 1). On the 12

occasions in which it was, attitudes towards Latino immigrants

were broadly balanced between those that supported (n=5) and

those that criticized (n=7) this group. Even within the latter,

no overt discrimination of Latinos on grounds of their immigrant

status was expressed. When immigration came up in the discussion,

it was treated as an issue of concern for the whole Latino

community. Thus, for instance, in (8) hechoenmexico2 sees Latinos

as constituting an ethnic group who might one day elect a Latino

president who could “offer our people a new perspective”,

including fixing “immigration amongst other issues”.

(8) 381. hechoenmexico2

39

Obama 08' Aunque no lo quieran acceptar es el mejor candidato y va a ganar!

Es el unico que ha hablado claro acerca de el DREAM Act enves de decir que

va arreglar la inmigracion entre otros puntos .. So don't hate. I hope that one

day we can get a latino to follow in his foot steps and offer our people a new

perspective... Believe in change Believe in OBAMA

‘Obama 08’ Despite of what you may think, he is the best

candidate and he is going to win! He is the only one who has

spoken clearly about the Dream Act, instead of claiming that

he is going to fix the immigration problem among other

stuff. . […]’

The possible illegal status of some of the YouTubers in the

corpus met with mixed reactions from other YouTubers. In (9), for

instance, H2R25 deems Hillary Clinton as a candidate not

deserving the Latino vote because she vetoed a law that would

have allowed illegal, undocumented aliens to apply for identity

and driving licenses in the US.

(9) 470. H2R25

40

[…] . Yo no estaria tan a favor de Hillary , ya que ella fue la que veto una ley para

que los indocumentados tengan una identificacion y hasta licensia por si no lo

sabias..

‘I would not support Hillary so strongly, as she was the one

who vetoed a law that would have allowed undocumented aliens

to get an ID and even a driver’s license, in case you did

not know..’

In (10), in contrast, strong criticism towards illegal

immigrants’ rights in the US, notably to documentation (driver’s

license), was voiced.

(10) 292. wnper6

why should illegals have driver's liscense? How can they be

held accountable if they have no social security number and

they cause an accident.we all know they use fake ids with

fake names and fake numbers.... that puts the burden on

insurance companies and on me as trhe policy holder. i

although i am not against illegals coming here and working

41

for a living. i am against illegals getting driver's

liscense because it is a huge liability. Go Barack Obama.

Wnper6 complains that illegal immigrants’ lack of liability

increases the financial burden on insurance companies and on

those, like him/herself, insured by them. Wnper6 also states

‘common knowledge’, with the argumentative claim ‘we all know’,

which explicitly associates immigrant Latinos with criminality:

‘they use fake ids with fake names and fake numbers’. Despite

such strong criticism, wnper6 implies illegals’ right to “com[e]

here and work for a living”.

5.2.6. Latinos, Whites and Blacks – racialization of identities (Thematic Content VI)

The interaction triggered by the OR posting created an ideal

site for the construction/ratification/dispute of racial

identities, especially connected to Barack Obama’s bi-racial

background. In 48 instances within the corpus Latinos were

constructed as a distinctive racial group – one different from

Blacks and Whites. Along the results of De Fina (2000), these

other groups (in our case, Blacks and Whites) were constructed as

42

national or ethnic homogeneous groups. This form of

categorization emerges clearly in testacct321’s response in (11):

(11) 125. testacct321

@AvonBarksdaleDC:

No, he doesn't hate his black side as he was a community

organizer and civil rights lawyer fighting for the rights ofblacks, whites, hispanics, etc.) […]

In 41 of the 48 instances of Latino identity racializing in

our corpus, moreover, the Latino identity was constructed as

having commonalities with that of Blacks – i.e., another minority

racial group in the US (cf. Hitlin et al.’s 2007 findings). One

YouTuber referred to Blacks as Latinos’ cousins, in clear

reference to the term ‘brothers’ with which black males commonly

address each other in the US. Another posting referred to “la

comunidad Afroamericana y Latinoamericana” (the Afro-American and

Latin-American community) (note the use of community in the

43

singular). And in (12), Pantaleon70 urged Latinos to vote for

Obama and to establish close ties with Blacks:

(12) 409. Pantaleon70

Nos quedaremos aislados si no vtamos por Obama , hasta los blancos votaran

por el ya que nadie quiere otro republicano , otro guerrerista por 4 u 8 anos

mas . Es el momento de estrechar lazos con los aframericanos donde

estan los politicos que decian que estos dos grups deben estar unidos?,

‘We will become isolated if we do not vote for Obama. Even

Whites will vote for him since nobody wants a pro-war

republican for 4 or 8 more years. It is the time to

strengthen our ties with African-Americans where are the

politicians who said these two groups should be united?’

Pantaleon70’s posting is representative of other postings in

the corpus in which the fact that both Latinos and Blacks

constitute marginalized minorities was used as justification for

their needing to support each other in fighting oppression,

discrimination and hegemony. Obama’s racial background is pointed

out as the reason why Latinos should vote for him. In the context

of the US, being partially black traditionally equals to being

44

categorized as “black”, hence, for instance, general claims that

Obama is the first black president of the US. However, as often,

mutual charges of racism and irreconcilable differences among

Blacks and Latinos also surfaced in the YouTube discussion, of

which (13) is an example:

(13) 249. locodelcoco300

[…]. Los latinos no deben confiar en este individuo, él no va a ver por sus intereses.

Les va otro dato y conste que no soy racista sabían que de cada 10 asesinatos

cometidos en contra de hispanos en la Unión Americana, 7 son ejecutados

por negros Ahí tienen otra razón para no votar por Obama. Wake up latinos no

sean borregos.

‘Latinos should not trust this guy. He is not going to fight

for your interests. I am going to give you some data, and

just for the record, I am not racist but did you know that

out of every ten murders committed against Latinos in the US

7 are carried out by Blacks. There you have another reason

not to vote for Obama. Wake up Latinos, do not behave like

sheep.’

45

locodelcoco300 warns Latinos against voting for Obama. Using

a typical racism denial strategy (Van Dijk, 1992), he

emphatically rejects the possibility of him being racist (“que

conste que no soy racista”) before providing ‘statistical

evidence’ that links Blacks with criminal persecution (murdering)

of Hispanics in the US in support of his exhortation to fellow

Latinos to “wake up” and not to continue to stupidly follow (“no

sean borregos”) Obama.

Latinos’ racial biases against Blacks also emerged

occasionally in the discussion and, although Latinos were

constructed as a homogenous racial group in the corpus, in two

postings their racial diversity of Latinos emerged as the reason

why some black Latinos would vote for Obama or why certain

national groups, i.e. Mexican, would hold racial attitudes

towards other national groups with a high incidence of black

people such as Dominicans, Puerto Ricans and other Caribbean

countries (see De Fina 2000 for similar results).

7. Concluding remarks

In this study we have proposed six thematic contents that

may be included in the schemata on the basis of which the Latino

46

identity was constructed in a corpus of YouTube comments sent in

response to the OR posting, namely: (I) Issues of nomenclature:

Hispanic versus Latino preferred or more appropriate pan-ethnic

term; (II) Dual identities: National versus pan-ethnic Latino

identity; (III) Dual identities: Constructing a pan-ethnic

identity; (IV) Paradoxical status of Spanish with the Latino

community; (V) Immigrants versus US-born Latinos; and (VI)

Latinos, Whites and Blacks – racialization of identities.

YouTubers specifically showed a predilection for the Latino,

rather than the Hispanic, label to refer to a pan-ethnic group,

and saw themselves as a distinctive, broadly homogenous, pan-

ethnic group. They also seemed to have embraced this Latino

identity, even though this implied a (total/partial) renunciation

of their former national identities and despite the fact that the

Latino identity continues to be stigmatized in the US. Within

the US-based Latino identity, moreover, knowledge of Spanish was

highly valued in the corpus. Contrary to some studies (see

Garcia-Bedolla 2003), Spanish monolingualism did not emerge in

our data as a negative, stigmatizing trait. As regards attitudes

towards immigration, our results were almost split between

47

support and criticism, which seems to lend further support to the

belief by some Latino scholars that the recent influx of

immigrants from Latin American countries into the US has split

the Latino community. Selective dissociation from the Latin-

American immigrant identity, which in the US context is highly

stigmatized, did not feature in any quantitative salient way in

our data. Instead, most YouTubers who commented on immigration

issues showed solidarity towards Latin American immigrants and

saw their causes as pertaining to all Latinos. Lastly, our results

confirmed the racialization of Latinos in the US. This is in

spite of the fact that Latinos are of many races. For the most

part, YouTubers in the corpus positioned themselves as a distinct

Latino racial group, one mainly aligned with the other main

minority group in the US: Blacks. Latinos in our data very seldom

pointed to the racial diversity of their in-group.

Overall, our work has provided fresh, quantitative and

qualitative evidence of the particular schemata that underlie the

social dimensions and relationships associated with the processes

of Latino identity construction. By doing this within the

specific context of a YouTube text-based discussion, it has

48

responded to legitimate calls for much needed research into

social identity construction within deindividuated CMC

environments. Furthermore, by combining top-down and bottom-up

approaches to the data, our analysis further illustrates how

widely shared ideologies, political or otherwise, come into

existence and are maintained in local interactions.

Notes

(1) Population Projections, July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2050. US Census

Bureau.

(2) The same applies to the ‘Hispanic’ label. For an in-depth

discussion, see Gracia & De Greiff (2000).

(3) Mercury media

http://www.mercurymedia.com/White_Papers/PowerOfHispanics.pdf

(4) We tackle the two other levels, strategies and means and forms of

realization, in our paper (Authors under review), where we analyze how

im/politeness strategies are deployed in order to construct

dis/affiliation with out/in-groups.

(5) Although our study is fundamentally qualitative in nature, we

agree with Gee (2005: 142) that “numbers” can guide us in terms of the

specific hypotheses we can investigate through close scrutiny of the

details and content of the participants’ interactions

49

(6) All translations – between inverted comma signs – have been made

by the authors of this study. Bold text is used to highlight

discussion features.]

.

(7) See Leeman & García (2007: 130) for a discussion of

bi/multilingualism seen as an anti-American in the US.

(8) See Alcoff (2000) and Joseph (2004) for the salience of

religion to identity construction.

50

References

Alcoff, Linda Martin. 2000. Is Latino/a a racial identity? In:

Jorge J. E. Gracia and Pablo De Greiff (eds.) Latinos in

America: Philosophy and Social Identity. London: Routledge, 23-45.

Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2006. Introduction: Sociolinguistics and

computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(4),

419-438.

Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2006. Multingualism, diaspora, and the

Internet: Codes and identities on German-based diaspora

websites. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(4), 530-547.

Antaki, Charles & Susan, Widdicombe. 1998. Identities at talk.

London: Sage.

Bachmann, Iris. 2010. A Gente e Latino: The making of new

cultural spaces in Brazilian diaspora television. In: Nuria

Lorenzo-Dus (ed.) Spanish at Work. London: Palgrave McMillan,

50-66.

Benwell, Bethan & Elizabeth Stokoe. 2006. Discourse and identity.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

51

Blackledge, Adrian. 2002. The discursive construction of national

identity in multilingual Britain. Journal of Language, Identity and

Education 1(1), 67-87.

Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of

Native America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Casañas, Domingo Ivan. 2005. Hispanic vs Latino: Which one is right?

Available at http://74.125.47.132/search?

q=cache:HSbWWkVhg64J:www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/

2336+latino+versus+hispanic&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

de Fina, Anna. 2000. Orientation in immigrant narratives: The

role of ethnicity in the identification of characters.

Discourse Studies 2(2), 131-157.

de Fina, Anna. 2006. Group identity, narrative and self-

representations. In Anna de Fina, Deborah Schiffrin &

Michael Bamberg (eds.) Discourse and Identity. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 351-375.

de Fina, Anna, Schiffrin, Deborah, & Bamberg, Michael. 2006.

(eds.) Discourse and Identity. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

52

Dicker, Susan J. 2006. Dominican Americans in Washington Heights,

New York: Language and culture in a transnational community.

The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9(6), 713-

727.

García-Bedolla, Lisa. 2003. The identity paradox: Latino

language, politics and selective dissociation. Latino Studies

1, 264-283.

Garcia, Mary Helen. 2003. Speaking Spanish in Los Angeles and San

Antonio: Who, when, where and why. Southwest Journal of Linguistics

22(1), 1-21.

Garcia, Ofelia. 2007. Lenguas e identidades en mundos

hispanohablantes: Desde una posición plurilingüe y

minoritaria. In: M. Lacorte (ed.) Linguistica Aplicada del Espanol.

Madrid: Arco/Libros, 377- 406.

Gee, James P. 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Theory and Method,

2nd edition. New York: Routledge.

Gimenez, M. 1992. US ethnic politics: Implications for Latin

Americans, Latin American Perspectives 75(19), 7-17.

Gines, Venus. 2009. Hispanic vs. Latino. Available at

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?

53

q=cache:fPDz4nJdW30J:www.soaw.org/article.php%3Fid

%3D830+latino+versus+hispanic&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.

New York: Simon and Schuster.

Gracia, Jorge J. E. 2008. Latinos in America: Philosophy and Social Identity.

Malden, MA: Backwell.

Gracia, Jorge J. E. and De Greiff, Pablo. (eds.) 2000.

Hispanics/Latinos in the United States. London: Routledge.

Grove, S. 2008. YouTube: The Flattening of Politics.Nieman Reports.

Summer, 2008.

Hitlin, Steven, Brown, J. Scott, and Elder Jr., Glen H. 2007.

Measuring Latinos: Racial vs. ethnic classification and

self-understanding. Social Forces 86(2), 587-600.

Joseph, John. 2004. Language and Identity: National, ethnic, religious. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Joseph, John. 2006. Language and Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

54

Latinos on line Pew Research Center, available at

http://www.pewinternet.org/Commentary/2009/December/Latinos-

Online-20062008.aspx

Latorre, Sobeira. 2007. Shifting borders: An interview with Angie

Cruz. Latino Studies 5, 478-488.

Leeman, Jennifer & García, Pilar. 2007. Ideologías y prácticas en

la enseñanza del español como lengua mayoritaria y lengua

minoritaria. In Manel Lacorte (Ed.) Lingüística aplicada del español,

(pp. 117-148). Madrid: Arco.

Lipski, John M. 2007. El español de América en contacto con otras

lenguas. In Manel Lacorte (Ed.) Lingüística aplicada del español, (pp.

309-346). Madrid: Arco.

Maldonado-Torres, Nelson. 2009. A review of Latinos in America:

Philosophy and Social Identity. By Jorge J.E. Gracia. Blackwell

Publishers, 2008. 272 pages. Latino Studies 7.2 (2009) 284-6.

Mar-Molinero, Clare. 2010. Tu voz es tu voto: The roles of

Spanish in the 2008 United States Presidential Elections.

In: Nuria Lorenzo-Dus (ed.) Spanish at Work. London: Palgrave

McMillan, 67-82.

55

May, Albert. (2008). Campaign 2008: It’s on YouTube. Nieman

Reports. Summer, 2008.

Mendieta, Eduardo. 2000. The making of new peoples. Hispanizing

race. In: Jorge J. E. Gracia and Pablo De Greiff (eds.)

Latinos in America: Philosophy and Social Identity. London: Routledge,

45-60.

Mitra, Amanda. 1998. Virtual commonality: Looking for India on

the Internet. In: Steven G. Jones (ed.) Virtual Culture. London:

Sage, 55-79.

Moya, Paula M.L. 2003. With us or without us. The development of

a Latino Public Sphere. Nepantla. Views from South 4(2), 245-252.

Norris, Sigrid. 2007. The micropolitics of personal national and

ethnicity identity. Discourse and Society 18(5), 653-674.

Nuccetelli, Susan. 2007. What is an ethnic group? Against social

functionalism. In: Jorge J. E. Gracia (ed.) 2007. Race or

Ethnicity? On Black and Latino identity. Cornell University Press:

Ithaca, NY, 137-151.

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R. & Postmes, T. 1995. A social identity

model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social

Psychology 6, 161-198.

56

Rivera, Raquel Z. 2008. Reggaeton, gender, blogging and pedagogy.

Latino Studies 6, 327-338.

Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on conversation, 2 vols. In: G. Jefferson

(Ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.

Schute, Ofelia. 2000. Negotiating Latina identities. In: Jorge J.

E. Gracia and Pablo De Greiff, (eds.) Latinos in America:

Philosophy and Social Identity. London: Routledge, 61-76.

Sinclair, John and Stuart Cunningham 2000. Go with the flow:

Diasporas and the media. Television and New Media 1, 11-31.

Thornborrow, Joanna. 2001. Language and the media. In Ishtla

Singh and Jean Stilwell Peccei (Eds). Language, society and

power. An introduction. 2nd ed. (pp. 55-74). London: Routledge.

Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline. 2002. Spanish-English code-switching

among US Latinos.”International Journal of the Sociology of Language

158, 89-119.

van, Dijk, Teun A. 1992. Discourse and the denial of racism.

Discourse & Society 3(1), 87-118.

van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London:

Sage.

57

Velez-Rendon, Gloria. 2007. Trayectorias bilingues: Los desafios

en la construccion de identidades entre inmigrantes

hispanas. Revista Internacional de Linguistica Iberoamericana 5(2), 163-

176.

Westling, M. 2007. Expanding the public sphere: The Impact of

Facebook on political communication.

http://www.thenewvernacular.com/projects/

facebook_and_political_communication.pdf (last accessed on

November 19, 2008).

Widdicombe, Sue. 1998. “But you do not class yourself” The

interactional management of category membership and non-

membership. In Charles Antaki, Charles & Sue, Widdicombe.

Identities at talk, (pp. 52-70). London: Sage.

Wodak, Ruth, de Cillia, Rudolf, Reisigl, Martin and Liebhart,

Karin. 1999. The Discursive Construction of National Identity.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Wortham, Stanton E. F. 2001. Narratives in Action: A Strategy for Research and

Analysis. Teachers College Press.

58