The Japanese American Family

1

14� � �

The Japanese AmericanFamily

1For example, in her extended study of Asian American identity, Kibria (2002) almost entirely omits Japanese Americansand simply states that they “were vilified and sent off to internment camps” during World War II. According to Tuan(1998:16), Japanese Americans are “indelibly marked by their wartime internment,” which is said to “play a significantrole in promoting a salient ethnic identity even among current generations with no direct internment experience.”Meanwhile, the historical significance and impact of the heroic accomplishments of the 442nd Infantry Battalion duringWorld War II—the most highly decorated unit in U.S. military history—have been largely purged from recent writings onJapanese Americans.2Among Japanese and to a somewhat lesser extent nisei Japanese Americans, the Confucian norm toward (ostensible)humility generally prohibits boastfulness and the claiming of credit especially in regard to events that one did not putforth effort to bring about. The reticence that Japanese Americans who endured the internment often have toward dis-cussing it is not due to “repression” (Bai, 1995:38) but the belief that victimization is not as significant as the notableaccomplishments that Japanese Americans themselves have worked hard to achieve. For a discussion of related issues forAsian Americans more generally, see Sakamoto, Goyette, and Kim (2009).

Arthur SakamotoChangHwan Kim

Isao Takei

INTRODUCTION

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II has become widely recognized as aninfamous event in American history. Much research continues to be devoted to topics relating toor foreshadowing that historic episode. Indeed, in Asian American studies courses, JapaneseAmericans are implicitly portrayed as “the group that was interned” as if that incident of victim-ization were the most important characteristic defining this group.1

This popular representation is ironic because the internment of Japanese Americans wasnot the consequence of any of the actual activities of Japanese Americans at that time—that is,Japanese Americans did not do anything to cause the internment to occur. In defining JapaneseAmericans as being noteworthy mainly because of their internment history, the salient lifeactivities and achievements of Japanese Americans themselves are being overlooked. Ourdecades of social interaction with Japanese Americans suggest to us that they tend to prefer tobe recognized by what they have done and have worked to accomplish in their lifetimes and notby distant historical events that were beyond their immediate control or were never part oftheir own personal experience.2

GRIDLINE SET IN 1ST-PP TO INDICATE SAFE AREA; TO BE REMOVED AFTER 1ST-PP

M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

2 Part 4 • Asian American Ethnic Families

In this regard, Japanese Americans have traditionally understood that their agency takesplace within the social context of their families, which undergirds the experiences of their actuallives. Understanding this critical context has been hampered, however, by the lack of research onthe Japanese American family in recent years. In this chapter, we begin to fill this research gap byproviding an empirical analysis of the Japanese American family using current data.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Many excellent discussions of Japanese American history and Japanese immigration to theUnited States are well known and widely available (Barringer, Gardner, and Levin, 1993; Daniels,1988; Hosokawa, 1992; Kitano, 1976; Kitano and Daniels, 1995; Min, 2006; Nishi, 1995;Takahashi, 1997; Wilson and Hosokawa, 1980). For our purposes, immigration patterns andrelated demographic trends are the most directly pertinent factors. These trends form the imme-diate antecedents of the current diversity of contemporary Japanese American family patterns.

As discussed in detail in the aforementioned references, immigration from Japan may bedistinguished from immigration from other Asian nations in that a significant JapaneseAmerican population was established in the early twentieth century, especially in Hawaii andCalifornia. These communities included many Japanese American families consisting of immi-grant parents residing with their native-born, second-generation children. Whereas immigra-tion laws relating to the Chinese (most notably the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) limited thesignificant development of a regular Chinese American family during this time period (Wong,1995:69), the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907–1908 curtailed the immigration of Japanesemale laborers but specifically allowed for Japanese women to immigrate for the purpose ofmarrying Japanese men who were already established in the United States For more than adecade afterward, the so-called “picture brides” arrived in the United States, and their fertilitywas substantial within a fairly short period of time (Barringer, Gardner, and Levin, 1993;Kitano, 1976).

By 1920, the Japanese American population was expanding while the Chinese Americanpopulation was contracting due to the limited number of Chinese women in the United States(Barringer, Gardner, and Levin, 1993:39). Although further immigration from Japan and most ofthe rest of Asia was largely eliminated by the Immigration Act of 1924, by that time JapaneseAmericans had already formed stable communities that included a sizable subpopulation of sec-ond-generation offspring. Japanese Americans had become by far the largest Asian Americangroup during the first half of the twentieth century.

Another distinctive feature of Japanese immigration is that its level in the post-1965 periodis the lowest among the major Asian nations (Min, 2006:17). After the fundamental changes inthe immigration laws that occurred in 1965, immigration from such countries as Vietnam, Chinaand Hong Kong, India, the Philippines, and South Korea has numbered in the millions during thelast few decades, but immigration from Japan has been far more limited (Min, 2006:17). As aresult of the smaller stream of recent immigrants when combined with the substantial subpopu-lation of second-generation persons (as well as their offspring) from the twentieth century,Japanese Americans today are the only Asian American group that is primarily native born3

(Sakamoto, Goyette, and Kim, 2009:258).

3Due to their high fertility, the Hmong in the last few years appear to have joined Japanese Americans as being the onlyprimarily native-born groups among the specific ethnicities included in the Asian racial category as currently defined bythe U.S. Census Bureau (Sakamoto, Goyette, and Kim, 2009:258).


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

Chapter 14 • The Japanese American Family 3

By convention in this literature and among Japanese Americans themselves, foreign-bornimmigrants are often referred to as issei (i.e., “first generation” in Japanese). Their native-bornsecond-generation children are known as nisei (i.e., “second generation” in Japanese). The off-spring of the nisei, who are also usually native born, are known as sansei (i.e., “third generation”in Japanese).

The Classical Issei Family

Kitano and Kitano (1998:317) describe “the issei family” in reference to the first stream of isseiimmigrants who, as noted, began arriving in significant numbers during the 1890s. Those immi-grants were largely motivated by economic opportunity, and as discussed by Kitano and Kitano(1998), they brought with them the cultural heritage of a more traditional Japanese society (i.e.,associated with the Meiji era of the nineteenth century). Having roots in Buddhism andConfucianism, this culture emphasized group obligation over individualism, and behavioral obe-dience to authority over personal verbal expression (Reischauer, 1977; Smith, 1983). As summa-rized by Kitano and Kitano (1998:318), the issei family may be characterized by “interactionbased on obligation, strong involvement in family relationships, priority of filial bond over con-jugal bond, male dominance, rigid division of labor by sex, emotional restraint with emphasis oncompassion, respect, consideration, stability, and little verbal communication.” In comparison tomore typical American families (even at that time), which may permit and even encourage dem-ocratic-style exchanges between parents and children, the issei family was more hierarchical,authoritarian, and patriarchal.

In addition, the Confucian tradition “emphasized that stable families ensured a stable soci-ety. The ie (i.e., the family lineage) structure endured over time and was of greater importancethan the individuals constituting the unit; individual interest and goals were secondary to thelarger unit” (Kitano and Kitano, 1998:313). This cultural orientation was implicit in the issei fam-ily and was more consistent with the traditional Asian concerns for interdependence and collec-tivism than with the European American emphasis on fostering independence and individualismin their children (Kim and Wong, 2002:185).

This Confucian heritage also promoted a concern for children to be disciplined and trainedin such a way that they will most likely bring honor to the family by their being successful in somemanner (Kim and Wong, 2002; Lyman, 1974). Bringing honor to the family is consistent with filialpiety, obedience toward parental wishes, and parental authority; Japanese parents want to havesuccessful children in that their high achievements are naturally viewed as a positive reflection onthe parents themselves as well as on the ie. Conversely, “shame was one means of social control:Don’t do things that will bring shame on the Kitano family and the Japanese community”(Kitano and Kitano, 1998:312). “Dedicating one’s life to the advancement and good reputation ofthe ie was an obligation” (Kitano and Kitano, 1998:313).

This combination of Buddhist austerity and Confucian authoritarianism was, in practice,regularly punctuated by family breaks that provided some relief from the concerns for fosteringdiscipline, training, and obedience that characterized the daily parenting styles of the issei.Family outings, special treats on weekends, community gatherings, festivals, and both Americanand Japanese holidays were often venues for the issei family to engage in some entertainment andrelaxation (Kitano, 1976; Kitano and Kitano, 1998). While one rarely finds discussions of espe-cially happy or romantic issei marriages from this period, the family environment from the per-spective of the nisei commonly provided security, stability, and some relaxation in addition to theMeiji-era discipline. As stated by Kitano and Daniels (1995:74), “The phrase kodomo no tame ni


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


(“for the sake of the children”) connotes sacrificing one’s own life for the next generation, and itwas a common cultural ideal (if not explicit verbal expression) among the issei in the earlyJapanese American communities.4

The Educational Attainment of the Nisei

The classical issei family promoted discipline, security, stability, and a motivation for achievementthat served as the foundation of the educational attainment of the nisei (Lyman, 1974). Asdescribed by Jiobu (1988) “The Japanese-American culture places a high regard on education andon the set of values contained within the Confucian ethic: hard work, sacrifice for the future,patience, and stoicism in the face of adversity.” In the same vein, Kitano and Kitano (1998:312)note that “There was a strong emphasis on obedience, especially to the Caucasian teachers, to studyhard, to keep quiet, and not to complain (monku).” In other words, the classic issei family becamethe social venue through which the agency of Japanese Americans was expressed by directing thenisei toward economic self-sufficiency, achievement, and high educational attainment. Indeed,the adoration of the high level of educational opportunity that is available in the United States(i.e., “an education befitting kings”) was specifically cited in the “Japanese American Creed,” whichwas symbolic of the attitudes of many issei and nisei during that era (Kitano and Daniels,1995:64). Kitano (1976:39) similarly states that “the story of issei self-sacrifice to send their isseichildren to college is a common one in the Japanese-American community.”

Although not adequately acknowledged in contemporary research on Japanese Americans,a high level of schooling has been a statistical reality as well as an important demographic char-acteristic of the nisei (Akiba, 2006; Bonacich and Modell, 1980; Chin, 2005; Featherman andHauser, 1978; Flewelling and Hirabayashi, 1994; Hirschman and Wong, 1986; Kitano, 1976; Mareand Winship, 1988; Sakamoto, Liu, and Tzeng, 1998; Sakamoto, Wu, and Tzeng, 2000; Thomas,1952). For example, Sakamoto, Liu, and Tzeng’s (1998:233) analysis of the 1940 U.S. Census datafinds that the mean years of schooling completed by nisei men in the labor force was 2.26 timeshigher than for Whites (which was substantial during that era of low educational attainment).High educational attainment is likely the single most important proximate determinant of theprominent social mobility of Japanese Americans during the twentieth century (Levine andMontero, 1973; Sakamoto and Furuichi, 1997).

The exaggeration of a group characteristic is often unwarranted in that doing so maypromote a “stereotype” that ignores the substantial variability that typically exists within anydemographic group, including Japanese Americans. Nonetheless, in the case of the nisei duringthe twentieth century, their average levels of schooling and occupational mobility are sufficientlyhigh to warrant general recognition. O’Brien and Fugita (1991:105) even claim that the niseirepresent “one of the most remarkable upward mobility processes in American history. Theeconomic, educational, and professional achievements of the Japanese Americans rank as highor higher than any other ethnic group in this country.” Although we do not seek to endorsehyperbole about phenomena that are not actually that well studied, the above-average socioe-conomic achievements of the nisei are nevertheless statistically undeniable and are importantto understanding the traditional Japanese American family.

On average, the educational level of the issei during the early part of the twentieth centurywas higher than that of African Americans, Italian Americans, Mexican Americans, and Native

4The Japanese phrase kodomo no tame ni (“for the sake of the children”) is so common and well known that it has evenbeen used as the title of a book, a movie, and a play.


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


Americans but lower than that of English Americans, German Americans, Irish Americans, andScottish Americans (Darity, Dietrich, and Guilkey, 1997:302).5 As of 1910, most issei were stillprimarily employed in low-wage agricultural work so that their mean occupational status wasquite low and similar to that of African Americans (Darity, Dietrich, and Guilkey, 1997:302). Theissei soon moved into small self-employed farming and related businesses, however, whichimproved their incomes to some degree (Nee and Wong, 1985). Nonetheless, when compared toWhites who had much greater economic opportunities during the first half of the twentieth cen-tury, the socioeconomic backgrounds of the nisei (in terms of the rural origins, educational lev-els, occupational status, and incomes of their issei parents) were usually somewhat less advan-taged. Given their less advantaged origins, the higher educational attainment of the nisei duringthat time period is especially notable and is more formally evident in the multivariate statisticalresults of Featherman and Hauser (1978:449) and Mare and Winship (1988:190).6

Education and Traditional Japanese and Japanese American Families

As pointed out by Hirschman and Wong (1986:2), post-1965 Asian American immigration isselective toward persons with higher levels of education. In their careful study of attitudinal andsocioeconomic variables, however, Goyette and Xie (1999:24) nonetheless conclude that “thesocioeconomic approach is unsatisfactory as a general framework for explaining the educationalachievement of Asian American children.” Indeed, the aforementioned studies by Feathermanand Hauser (1978) and Mare and Winship (1988) find that the educational differential betweenWhite and Asian American men is statistically increased after controlling for socioeconomic vari-ables in data from the 1970s.7 Consistent with the references regarding the educational attain-ment of the nisei during the first half of the twentieth century, Japanese Americans in the post-1965 era continue to obtain educational levels above those obtained by Whites (on average) withsimilar socioeconomic backgrounds (Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo, 2006; Xie and Goyette, 2004). Insum, several subcultural factors relating to the family probably facilitate the high educationalattainment of Japanese American children, which cannot be fully explained by socioeconomic vari-ables alone (Caudill and De Vos, 1956; Goyette and Xie, 1999; Kao, 1995; Kao and Tienda, 1995).

One subcultural factor may relate to the transmission of expectations associated withJapanese and other Asian families. Prior research on post-1965 Asian Americans finds thatJapanese and other Asian American children have higher educational expectations and that thesederive from the high educational expectations placed on them by their parents (Cheng andStarks, 2002; Goyette and Xie, 1999; Kao, 1995; Sun, 1998; Wong, 1990)—that is, Japanese andother Asian American families seem to be especially conducive to the transmission of parentalexpectations (regarding education) to their children.

5As stated by Kitano and Kikumura (1980:8), “the majority of Japanese [issei] immigrants came from middle and lowerclasses.”6Jiobu (1988) disputes the view that educational attainment was high among the pre–World War II cohort of nisei andthat education fostered their labor market attainments and social mobility. Jiobu’s (1988:363) analysis is flawed, how-ever, because most nisei at the onset of World War II were too young to have completed their educational attainment,and because analyses of their occupational attainments and wages (as adults) clearly demonstrate the primary impor-tance of their higher educational attainment (Levine and Montero, 1973; Sakamoto and Furuichi, 1997; Sakamoto, Liuand Tzeng, 1998).7The doublethink irony of some “multiculturalist” perspectives of racial and ethnic inequality is that they assume fun-damentally structural explanations that generally omit the consideration of minority subcultural factors. Okihiro(1994:32-33) even chides other researchers who have attempted to understand some of the subcultural sources of thehigher educational attainment of the nisei which has yet to be adequately explained.


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


In general, educational attainment is often believed to be more important in Japan than inthe United States in terms of long-term socioeconomic rewards (Ishida, 1993; Ono, 2004;Sakamoto and Powers, 1995). According to Reischauer (1977:171), “the close link between aca-demic achievement and success in life is taken for granted by everyone in Japan.” The Japaneselabor market is more highly stratified by educational credentials that have long-term and persist-ent effects years after graduation (Ishida, Spilerman, and Su, 1997). The intense competition forentering prestigious universities in Japan (known as “examination hell”) reflects the lifelongsocioeconomic consequences of this competition, and it gives rise to an entire industry of after-school tutoring services (i.e., juku or cram schools [Stevenson and Baker, 1992]). By contrast, inthe American labor market, the significance of educational attainment seems to be somewhatmore rapidly replaced by observed labor force experience and previous work history as moreimportant proximate determinants of labor market attainments; the returns to educationalattainment are more significantly mediated by the worker’s most recent job experience since theAmerican pay system more strictly emphasizes current job category and title per se (Aoki, 1988).

The greater significance of educational attainment for advancement in the stratificationsystem undoubtedly reflects, at least in part, a higher cultural value that is placed on education inJapan. “Nothing, in fact, is more central in Japanese society or more basic to Japan’s success thanis its educational system” (Reischauer, 1977:167). According to Reischauer (1977:167), the histor-ical source of this cultural emphasis derives from medieval China and is commonly associatedwith Confucianism that continues to permeate Japanese cultural values and ethics (Reischauer,1977:214; Smith, 1983:31).

In contrast to American egalitarianism, Japanese society accepts social hierarchy asinevitable and natural and lacks the American cultural strains that foster latent anti-intellectual-ism and glorify the “self-made man” and the “common man” (Hofstadter, 1963; Reischauer,1977:162). Educational attainment is accepted as a fundamental aspect of social hierarchy.Universities therefore have a more clearly defined status hierarchy in Japan, and teachers at all lev-els are referred to respectfully in daily conversation with a special honorific title (i.e., sensei, whichliterally means “teacher”). This title distinguishes them from other adults who are usually referredto by a common generic title (i.e., san, which may be translated as “Mr.” or “Miss” or “Mrs.” orMs.”). Educators rather than political leaders are more frequently portrayed on Japanese currency.

The cultural significance of education undoubtedly carries over to some extent amongJapanese Americans, at least among the nisei and possibly among the sansei as well. In a detailedstudy of both quantitative and qualitative research, Schneider, Hieshima, Lee, and Plank(1994:347) conclude that:

Results suggest that the strongest continuity between Japanese Americans and other East-Asian Americans is the focus on values. This is perhaps most pronounced in the area of educa-tion. Like other East Asians, Japanese Americans value education for self-improvement, self-esteem, and as a means for social mobility. It is important to underscore that JapaneseAmericans, like other East-Asian groups, place a high intrinsic value on education, which somemay argue is not representative of American values, which tend to stress education primarilyfor occupational mobility.

In short, a high cultural value placed on education—both for its intrinsic and extrinsicrewards—may be observed among Japanese Americans, which is consistent with the quote fromJiobu (1988) cited earlier.

A common phenomenon in Japanese and Japanese American families is the social roleknown as the “education mom” (i.e., kyoiku mama [Reischauer, 1977:172; Stevenson and Stigler,


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


1992:82]). Stated bluntly, Japanese (and other Asian) mothers are often highly dedicated topreparing their children for a college educational career because the educational success of theirchildren brings honor and status to the entire family. More specifically, Japanese and other Asianmothers and fathers routinely have high educational expectations for their children, clearly con-vey this fact to them, and carefully invest in educational and social resources that enhance theirchildren’s academic achievements (Caplan, Choy, and Whitmore, 1991; Fejgin, 1995; Goyette andXie, 1999; Hieshima and Schneider, 1994; Hirschman and Wong, 1986; Kao, 1995; Schneider andLee, 1990; Sun, 1998).

For example, as documented by Sun (1998), Asian American parents save proportionatelymore of their income for their children’s college, have fewer children, are less likely to single-par-ent, are more likely to have a computer at home for educational purposes, are more likely to havetheir children involved in “cultural capital activities” (e.g., music lessons, art museums, sciencecamps), and are more likely to expect their children to attend college or graduate school. In turn,Asian American children are more likely to face disciplinary pressures for poor academic per-formance, to have limited and regulated television viewing, to have rules about grades and doinghomework, and to spend more hours per week doing homework (Fejgin, 1995; Kao, 1995; Wong,1990). While typically both parents support these practices, the role of the “education mom” isusually seen as having the major responsibility of organizing, scheduling, fostering, and decidingon all of the education-related activities and rules.8

A second common pattern among Japanese and other Asian Americans centers aroundchild-rearing patterns that promote greater family identity and cohesiveness than is typicalamong mainstream White American families (Conner, 1974; Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake,and Weisz, 2000). Underlying these patterns are Asian collectivist beliefs that people are moreinherently the products of their social and family environments (Reischauer, 1977) rather thanbeing somehow intrinsically “individuals” who have their own innate sources of uniqueness thatmust be respected and nurtured (Lareau, 2002). Asian parents’ group-oriented beliefs lead themto place greater emphasis on shaping and molding their children into being what parents deem tobe more ideally desirable rather than what their children may individually prefer to do with theirlives.9 Asian parents are therefore more likely to believe that their appropriate role is to push theirchildren into achieving higher educational attainment—despite their children’s own personalproclivities and individualistic interests—because Asian parents are more likely to believe thattheir primary parental responsibility is to promote the long-term interests of their children byshaping their personal development (rather than allowing their children “to just be themselves”or to experience “natural growth” [Lareau, 2002:752]).

In keeping with that cultural predisposition, Japanese and other Asian child-rearing patternsdo not promote independence but rather accept dependency as being natural, normal, andinevitable. Indeed, Japanese child-rearing patterns foster greater psychological dependency in theirchildren and forestall the development of a psychological sense of individualistic self-identity that isseparate from their parents (Doi, 1971). Although Stevenson and Stigler (1992:74–80) discuss theapparently greater permissiveness of early child-rearing practices of Japanese parents in relation toenhanced educational attainment (arguing that it leads their children to develop a greater apprecia-tion of learning as a reward or end in itself), the authors’ discussion does not adequately recognizethe consequences of this early socialization in fostering a closer psychological bond or emotional

8As stated by Alston and Takei (2005:152) in their discussion of the kyoiku mama role, “[Japanese] mothers are expectedto push and aid their children in their studies. The mother is blamed if a child does not do well or falls behind in school.”9A related cultural notion in this regard is the Confucian idea of the perfectibility of man.


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


interdependence between mothers and their children (Ben-Ari, 1996; Doi, 1971; Reischauer,1977:140–141; Rothbaum et al., 2000). Lacking a strong sense of self, Japanese children are morereadily influenced by their parents’ wishes and expectations (De Vos, 1973; Shimahara, 1986).

One relevant process in this regard is the practice of co-sleeping that has been traditionallypracticed and considered normative in Japan and elsewhere in Asia (Caudill and Plath, 1974;Reischauer, 1977). It also appears to be commonly observed among Japanese Americans (Kitano,1976:131). That is, Japanese and Japanese American parents routinely sleep in the same bed withtheir young children. Even if Asian children begin sleeping in their own bed, often it is in thesame room as their parents. This practice is usually continued until the child is as old as twelveyears of age. Co-sleeping reduces the child’s independent sense of self and thereby facilitates agreater emotional dependency of children on their parents (Caudill and Plath, 1974).

The result is that Japanese and other Asian and Asian American families and children arecomparatively less individualistic than White Americans (Bumpass, 1990; Kim and Wong, 2002;Rothbaum et al., 2000). In contrast to Japanese parents, White middle-class American parents typi-cally train their children to sleep by themselves even as infants (McKenna, 1996). White middle-class American parents (in contrast to Japanese parents) are careful to promote independence intheir children’s behavior at a young age, such as encouraging exploratory physical mobility even astoddlers. White parents tend to encourage their children to feed themselves their own food despitethe consequent mess that is often made by toddlers when learning to do this. In contrast toJapanese culture, independence and rugged individualism are traditional ideals (and may perhapseven be somewhat exaggerated) in American culture (Reischauer, 1977:135). The child-rearingpractices of White middle-class Americans train children to be more independent, resulting in agreater psychological insulation from their parents’ expectations regarding educational attainment.

Space limitations prevent a detailed discussion, but the Japanese cultural idea of amae(which has no adequate simple translation in English but is sometimes referred to as “permissive-ness” or “being spoiled”) further enhances the interdependence in the behaviors and feelingsbetween Japanese individuals in primary relationships (Doi, 1971; Meredith, 1966). Amae is saidto originate in Japanese child-rearing practices (Alston and Takei, 2005:20–21; Kumagai andKumagai, 1986; Reischauer, 1977:141).10 Although the extreme forms of “co-dependence” wouldbe viewed as dysfunctional in most any society (Beattie, 1987; Borovoy, 2001), the greater culturalproclivity toward amae is considered normal in Japan and is likely to promote interdependencebetween Japanese parents and their children. Being more dependent on their children’s successfor their own self-esteem, Japanese and Japanese American parents are more inclined to seek tohighly motivate their children, who are in turn more dependent on their parents’ approval intheir own self-evaluations. Amae thus facilitates the transmission of expectations for high educa-tional achievement from Japanese and Japanese American parents to their children.

CHANGE AND ADAPTATION

Any analysis of modern families will invariably need to incorporate the realities of several risingtrends that have influenced the living arrangements of a broad spectrum of Americans in thetwenty-first century. First, there is an increased incidence of non-family households.Demographers traditionally define the family as two or more persons living together in a house-hold unit who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption, but in the United States today many

10The feeling inherent in amae resembles that expressed by the American slang saying “Oh man, give me a break!” but ismore subtle and childlike.


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


households do not fit this description. 11 For example, one-person households are more commonnow as many middle-aged persons have delayed or even abandoned marriage while many elderlypersons have become more independent. Cohabitation (i.e., a couple living together before mar-riage, usually on a short-term basis as such) is another trend in modern societies. Gay/lesbiancouples are an additional example of a non-family household to the extent that these unions arenot legally recognized, which is usually the case in the United States Non-family households wereless common during much of the twentieth century, but the recognition of these households inthe twenty-first century would be far more realistic.

Two other trends among modern families include the increased incidence of divorce andnon-marital fertility. Due to these two trends, many children today live in households headed bya single parent. In some cases, the children were born while his or her parents were married, butthe parents later divorced. In other cases, the mother was never married and gave birth to thechild (or adopted a child) outside of marriage. Thus, household structures are far more compli-cated and varied now than during the early twentieth century when the divorce rate among theissei is estimated to have been a mere 1.6 percent (Kitano, 1976:42).

During that period before World War II, racial intermarriage was actually illegal in manystates (e.g., especially in the South) and was referred to as “miscegenation.” Intermarriage amongthe issei and even nisei during that era was rare (2 percent and 4 percent, respectively [Nishi,1995:128]). The legality of the “miscegenation laws” remained in effect until 1948 when they werestruck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since that time, racial intermarriage has steadily increased among Japanese Americans(Kitano, 1976:106–107; Nishi, 1995:128). In the Los Angeles area, which includes the singlelargest concentration of Japanese Americans, Japanese American intermarriage rose from 2 per-cent in 1924 to 49 percent in 1972. More recently using data from the 2000 U.S. Census, Xie andGoyette (2004:24) report an intermarriage rate of 49 percent for Japanese American women and31 percent for Japanese American men. In short, high rates of intermarriage are a reality for con-temporary Japanese Americans.

The biological children of Japanese Americans who intermarry are often described as bi-racial, and they may identify as such according to the racial classification scheme that is currentlyused by the U.S. Census Bureau (Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo, 2006). Across the generations, assim-ilation into mainstream America (in both cultural and biological terms) appears to be a signifi-cant trend (Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo, 2006). Descriptions of the contemporary JapaneseAmerican population may vary to some extent depending on whether bi-racial and multi-racialJapanese Americans are included as being part of the Japanese American population (Takei,Sakamoto, and Woo, 2006).

From a cultural point of view, another changing facet of contemporary Japanese Americanfamilies is the nature of immigration from Japan. The issei of the early twentieth century weremotivated primarily by economic aspirations; “In common with most immigrants, they wanted tobetter their lives” (Kitano and Kikumura, 1980:4). By contrast, contemporary issei may be lesslikely to be so primarily focused on economic opportunity and social mobility. Today’s issei are amore eclectic group. Some may be motivated to leave Japan precisely to avoid some traditional ele-ment of Japanese society such as (by American standards) strict gender roles, extended family rela-tions, seniority-based hierarchy in the workplace, or the limited acceptance of less conventional

11Households by definition exclude persons living in “group quarters,” which are defined as living units that do not includea private kitchen for individual use (e.g., college dormitories, military barracks, prisons). Persons in group quarters areoften specialized demographic groups that are excluded from our analysis due to space constraints and data limitation.


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


lifestyles or independent personalities. Many Japanese Americans who were born in Japan mayhave come to the United States as the spouse of a native-born American, often of another racialgroup—that is, intermarriage itself was associated with their process of migration to the UnitedStates or their legal capacity to reside here on a long-term basis. Other Japanese Americans may besojourners who reside in the United States for only a year or two to receive advanced training oreducation or who are on an overseas assignment for a major Japanese corporation.

In addition, the nature of contemporary migration from Japan differs somewhat from themigration of the issei during the early twentieth century because Japan has undergone substantialmodernization and cultural change since that time. After the total and demoralizing defeat associatedwith World War II, traditional Japanese practices, norms, and values lost much of their sway and ide-ological appeal (Fukutake, 1981). Advances in technology, communications, travel, and incomes haveincreased globalized interaction and have reduced the cultural isolation of the Japan. In short, mod-ern issei immigrants are typically far removed from the austere Meiji-era culture described earlier.

Studying Contemporary Japanese American Families

In order to investigate contemporary patterns of the Japanese American family, we use data fromthe American Community Survey (ACS), which is administered by the U.S. Census Bureau and isrepresentative of the entire household population of the United States Our analysis poolstogether the surveys from 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 so that an adequate sample size of a com-paratively small demographic group (i.e., Japanese Americans) may be obtained. Our results thusrefer to the period from 2005 to 2008.

Table 14.1 describes the categorization of racial/ethnic groups that we have adopted for thepurpose of studying the contemporary Japanese American family. Our investigation makes use ofthe information that is available in the ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008).Following the official classification system currently in use by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACSclassification system identifies Japanese as one group within the Asian racial category. BeingJapanese is thus a particular type of racial identity that is recognized in these data. Given our pur-poses, our analysis obviously needs to distinguish between Japanese and other Asians as is sum-marized in Table 14.1. Furthermore, foreign-born versus native-born Japanese are identified inorder to more precisely address issues relating to assimilation, intermarriage, and immigration.

The ACS also allows individuals to have multiple racial identities in that an individual ispermitted to identify with as many racial categories as desired. In general, only a tiny proportionof the overall American population identifies as bi-racial or multi-racial, but the proportion issomewhat higher among Asian Americans and other minority groups, which have smaller popu-lation sizes than Whites (Sakamoto, Kim, and Takei, forthcoming; Tafoya, Johnson, and Hill,2004). Given the availability of multi-racial identity in these data, we separate out JapaneseAmericans who also identify with other racial categories. We use the term bi-racial Japanese torefer to such individuals, as is summarized in Table 14.1. By contrast, single-race Japanese refers toindividuals who identify only as Japanese.

The ACS further allows for individuals to identify their “ancestry” that may be differentfrom their racial identity. Two general sorts of ancestry are distinguished. The first is known as“Hispanic” or “Latino,” which is referred to as an “ethnicity” in the ACS questionnaire. The othersort of ancestry is a more general self-identification (permitting the individual to write in someresponse) that is referred to specifically as an “ancestry” and is also provided in the ACS.

Following Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo (2006), we use this ACS information to identify per-sons who state that they are single-race Whites but who have Japanese ancestry. Although this


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


TABLE 14.1 Description of Major Racial/Ethnic Groups Used in the Analysis

Group(Abbreviation) Description

Foreign-Born Japanese single-race Japanese, foreign-born

(FB-Japanese)

Native-Born Japanese single-race Japanese, native-born

(NB-Japanese)

Biracial Japanese bi-racial and multi-racial Japanese, native-born or foreign-born

(BR-Japanese)

Japanese Whites single-race, native-born Whites who claim some “Japanese ancestry”

(J-White)

Whites single-race, non-Hispanic, native-born Whites without “Japanese ancestry”

(White)

Immigrant Whites single-race, non-Hispanic, foreign-born Whites without “Japanese ancestry”

(IWhite)

Asians single-race, non-Japanese Asian, native-born or foreign-born (may be Hispanic)

(Asian)

Blacks single-race, non-Hispanic African Americans, native-born or foreign-born

(Black)

Hispanics (Hispanic)

single-race, non-Asian, native-born or foreign-born persons who identify as “Hispanic”

Others all other racial/ethnic groups, foreign-born or native-born

(Other)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2005–2008).

group is not included as part of the Japanese American population in official U.S. Census Bureaupublications, Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo’s (2006) analysis of the 2000 Census data reports that102,200 non-Asian persons (most of whom identify as Whites) claim to have some Japaneseancestry but do not identify as Asian or Japanese as a racial group. These non-Asian persons withJapanese ancestry might possibly include, for example, those who have one Japanese grandparentor great-grandparent. Following Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo (2006), we refer to this group as“Japanese Whites” as summarized in Table 14.1.

Due to space limitations, a detailed analysis of other groups is beyond the scope of our study,but several major racial/ethnic categories are identified in our investigation. As described in Table14.1,“Whites”refers to single-race, non-Hispanic, native-born Whites without any Japanese ancestry.“Immigrant Whites” refers to single-race, non-Hispanic, foreign-born Whites without any Japaneseancestry. “Asians” refers to single race, non-Japanese Asians who are either native born or foreignborn. “Blacks” refers to single-race, non-Hispanic African Americans who are either native born orforeign born. “Hispanics” refers to single-race, non-Asian persons who are either native born or for-eign born and who identify as “Hispanic” or “Latino.” “Others” refers to the residual category (i.e.,anyone not included in the prior categories, such as Native Americans and Pacific Islanders).

The particular household types that we identify in our analysis are shown in Table 14.2.Following up on our earlier discussion about changes in household patterns in contemporary


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

TABLE 14.2 Description of Japanese Household Types

Type Notes

Non-Family HouseholdsOne-Adult Household Adult householder living alone; householder is FB-Japanese or

NB-Japanese or BR-Japanese or J-White

Non-Family Household Two or more adults in household but none are legally related byblood, marriage, or adoption; householder is FB-Japanese or NB-Japanese or BR-Japanese or J-White

Non-Marital Families FB-Japanese NM-Family Non-marital family with FB-Japanese householder

NB-Japanese NM-Family Non-marital family with NB-Japanese householder

BR-Japanese NM-Family Non-marital family with BR-Japanese householder

J-White NM-Family Non-marital family with J-White householder

Marital FamiliesWhite-FB-Japanese Family White and FB-Japanese married couple

White-NB-Japanese Family White and NB-Japanese married couple

White-BR-Japanese Family White and BR-Japanese married couple

White-J-White Family White and J-White married couple

FB-FB-Japanese Family FB-Japanese and FB-Japanese married couple

NB-NB-Japanese Family NB-Japanese and NB-Japanese married couple

BR-J-White Family Married couple consisting of: BR-Japanese and BR-Japanese; or J-White and J-White; or BR-Japanese and J-White

FB-NB-Japanese Family FB-Japanese and NB-Japanese married couple

FB-BR-J-White Family Married couple consisting of: FB-Japanese and BR-Japanese; or FB-Japanese and J-White

NB-BR-J-White Family Married couple consisting of: NB-Japanese and BR-Japanese; or NB-Japanese and J-White

IWHITE-FB-Japanese Family Immigrant White and FB-Japanese married couple

IWHITE-NB-Japanese Family Immigrant White and NB-Japanese married couple

IWHITE-BR-Japanese Family Immigrant White and BR-Japanese married couple

IWHITE-J-White Family Immigrant White and J-White married couple

ASIAN-FB-Japanese Family Asian and FB-Japanese married couple

ASIAN-NB-Japanese Family Asian and NB-Japanese married couple

ASIAN-BR-Japanese Family Asian and BR-Japanese married couple

ASIAN-J-White Family Asian and J-White married couple

BLACK-FB-Japanese Family Black and FB-Japanese married couple

BLACK-NB-Japanese Family Black and NB-Japanese married couple

BLACK-BR-Japanese Family Black and BR-Japanese married couple

BLACK-J-White Family Black and J-White married couple

HISPANIC-FB-Japanese Family Hispanic and FB-Japanese married couple

HISPANIC-NB-Japanese Family Hispanic and NB-Japanese married couple

HISPANIC-BR-Japanese Family Hispanic and BR-Japanese married couple



M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

TABLE 14.2 (continued )

Type Notes

HISPANIC-J-White Family Hispanic and J-White married couple

OTHER-Japanese Family All other types of married couples in which the householder or thespouse is FB-Japanese or NB-Japanese or BR-Japanese or J-White


BR = Bi-racial, FB = foreign born, I = immigrant, J = Japanese, NB = native born, NM = non-marital


societies, our typology is more detailed than that considered by Kitano and Kitano (1998). First,we explicitly acknowledge one-adult households (i.e., adults living alone) as shown in Table 14.2.Second, we include non-family households. Third, our analysis identifies families that do notinclude a married couple, which we refer to as non-marital families. These families are most typ-ically represented by single-parent households with children. Also included in this group, how-ever, are other miscellaneous types of families consisting of related persons without children butno married couple (e.g., an adult son living with his elderly mother). In regard to the JapaneseAmerican population, non-marital families are broken down according to whether the house-holder (i.e., the reference person who is listed first in the questionnaire) is foreign-born Japanese(i.e., FB-Japanese), native-born Japanese (i.e., NB-Japanese), bi-racial Japanese (i.e., BR-Japanese), or Japanese White (i.e., J-White).

Our most detailed classification is used to identify household patterns among marital fam-ilies (i.e., families that include a married couple). As shown in Table 14.2, twenty-seven differenttypes of marital families are specified in our analysis. The first four of them refer to each of thefour types of Japanese Americans intermarried with Whites (i.e., White-FB-Japanese family,White-NB-Japanese family, White-BR-Japanese family or White-J-White family).

The next six categories refer to marital families in which the couple consists of a particularmatch between the two spouses based on the four Japanese American types. The FB-FB-Japanesefamily includes a married couple in which both spouses are foreign born. The NB-NB-Japanesefamily includes a married couple where both spouses are native born. The BR-J-White familyincludes a married couple consisting of spouses who are BR-Japanese and BR-Japanese; or BR-Japanese and J-White; or J-White and J-White. The FB-NB-Japanese family includes a marriedcouple in which one spouse is foreign born and the other spouse is native born. The FB-BR-J-White family includes a married couple consisting of spouses who are FB-Japanese and BR-Japanese; or FB-Japanese and J-White. The NB-BR-J-White family includes a married coupleconsisting of spouses who are NB-Japanese and BR-Japanese; or NB-Japanese and J-White.

As shown in Table 14.2, the next four categories refer to marital families consisting of cou-ples in which a particular Japanese American type is intermarried with a foreign-born White (i.e.,IWhite-FB-Japanese family, IWhite-NB-Japanese family, IWhite-BR-Japanese family, andIWhite-J-White family). Four categories are then included to refer to marital families consistingof couples in which a particular Japanese American type is intermarried with a (non-Japanese)Asian (i.e., Asian-FB-Japanese family, Asian-NB-Japanese family, Asian-BR-Japanese family, andAsian-J-White family). Next, intermarriage with African Americans is categorized (i.e., Black-FB-Japanese family, Black-NB-Japanese family, Black-BR-Japanese family, and Black-J-White fam-ily). Finally, intermarriage with Hispanics is categorized as well (i.e., Hispanic-FB-Japanese fam-ily, Hispanic-NB-Japanese family, Hispanic-BR-Japanese family, and Hispanic-J-White family).Other-Japanese family is the last category and simply refers to a residual grouping consisting of


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


any marital family not explicitly mentioned (and either the householder or the spouse identifiesas FB-Japanese, NB-Japanese, BR-Japanese, or J-White).

Contemporary Japanese American Family Patterns

The frequencies for these various household types are shown in Table 14.3. The frequencies arecategorized in two separate groups: White households and Japanese American households. Whitehouseholds include non-family and non-marital family households in which the householder isWhite as well as marital family households in which the householder is White and the spouse isnot Japanese. Japanese American households include non-family and non-marital family house-holds in which the householder is Japanese (i.e., FB-Japanese, NB-Japanese, BR-Japanese orJ-White) as well as marital family households in which either the householder or the spouse (orboth) is Japanese (i.e., FB-Japanese, NB-Japanese, BR-Japanese or J-White).

In regard to one-adult households, Table 14.3 shows that they represent 27.93 percent ofWhite households and 23.88 percent of Japanese American households. When using the house-hold as the unit of analysis (i.e., rather than counting up the total number of individuals), one-adult households are the second largest category. As also shown in Table 14.3, non-family house-holds represent 6.21 percent of White households and 5.43 percent of Japanese Americanhouseholds. Non-marital family households represent 11.37 percent of White households and8.47 percent of Japanese American households. The largest category is the marital family house-hold comprising 54.49 percent among White households and 62.22 percent among JapaneseAmerican households.

These foregoing statistics are consistent with our discussion regarding the greater ten-dency among mainstream Americans (relative to Japanese Americans) to value individualism,which results in less conformity to traditional ideals and established patterns. Compared toWhites, Japanese American households are more likely to be represented by the more tradition-ally normative family that includes a married couple. By contrast, White households are morelikely to be represented by one-adult households, non-family households, and non-marital fam-ily households.

In regard to marital families among Japanese American households, the level of intermar-riage with Whites is notable. The most common category among all Japanese American maritalfamilies is the White-FB-Japanese family with 10.27 percent. Another 7.9 percent are White-NB-Japanese families, which are followed by White-BR-Japanese families (i.e., 6.19 percent) and thenWhite-J-White families (i.e., 3.67 percent). Whereas intermarriage between Whites and JapaneseAmericans was relatively rare and outlawed in many states before World War II, households rep-resented by this pattern of intermarriage today constitute 28.03 percent (i.e., 10.27 percent + 7.9percent + 6.19 percent + 3.67 percent) of all Japanese American households. In other words,intermarriages between Whites and Japanese Americans are now the most common householdgrouping as is evident in Table 14.3.

Many Japanese Americans do of course marry other Japanese Americans, but the patternsvary depending on the type of Japanese American. As shown in Table 14.3, the most commoncategory of endogamous marriage is the NB-NB-Japanese family (i.e., 8.63 percent), which is thegroup that most closely resembles what Kitano and Kitano (1998:319) referred to as “the niseifamily.” That category is closely followed by the FB-FB-Japanese family (i.e., 7.23 percent), whichis the modern-day representation of the “the issei family.” Other patterns of intraethnic marriage(i.e., BR-J-White families, FB-NB-Japanese families, FB-BR-J-White families, and NB-BR-J-White families) are much fewer as is shown in Table 14.3. The total amount of endogamous


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


TABLE 14.3 Distribution of Household Types for White and Japanese Households

Type Whites (%) Japanese (%)

Non-Family Households

One-Adult Household 27.93 23.88

Non-Family Household 6.21 5.43

Non-Marital Families 11.37 (8.47)

FB-Japanese NM-Family 2.11

NB-Japanese NM-Family 4.13

BR-Japanese NM-Family 1.69

J-White NM-Family 0.54

Marital Families 54.49 (62.22)

White-FB-Japanese Family 10.27

White-NB-Japanese Family 7.90

White-BR-Japanese Family 6.19

White-J-White Family 3.67

FB-FB-Japanese Family 7.23

NB-NB-Japanese Family 8.63

BR-J-White Family 0.77

FB-NB-Japanese Family 1.94

FB-BR-J-White Family 0.25

NB-BR-J-White Family 0.76

IWHITE-FB-Japanese Family 1.04

IWHITE-NB-Japanese Family 0.53

IWHITE-BR-Japanese Family 0.37

IWHITE-J-White Family 0.22

ASIAN-FB-Japanese Family 1.77

ASIAN-NB-Japanese Family 4.29

ASIAN-BR-Japanese Family 1.54

ASIAN-J-White Family 0.09

BLACK-FB-Japanese Family 0.70

BLACK-NB-Japanese Family 0.23

BLACK-BR-Japanese Family 0.29

BLACK-J-White Family 0.05

HISPANIC-FB-Japanese Family 0.74

HISPANIC-NB-Japanese Family 0.88

HISPANIC-BR-Japanese Family 0.73

HISPANIC-J-White Family 0.25

OTHER-Japanese Family 0.89

Total 100.00 100.00



M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


marriage is 19.58 percent (i.e., 7.23 percent + 8.63 percent + .77 percent + 1.94 percent + .25 per-cent + .76 percent) of all Japanese American households.

Although Okihiro (1994:34) asserts that Asian Americans and African Americans are “akindred people,” Table 14.3 indicates that intermarriage between Japanese Americans and Blacksis actually rare in terms of marital family types. Intermarriage between Japanese Americans andHispanics also appears to be relatively infrequent. In regard to IWhites, only 1.04 percent ofJapanese American households are IWhite-FB Japanese families, and the percentages for theother IWhite categories are even smaller.

The grouping of intermarriage that is somewhat more prominent is the marital family con-sisting of a Japanese American with another (non-Japanese) Asian. Table 14.3 shows that 4.29percent of Japanese American households are Asian-NB Japanese families while 1.77 percent areAsian-FB Japanese families and 1.54 percent are Asian-BR Japanese families. Though much lesscommon than intermarriage with Whites, intermarriage of Japanese Americans with otherAsians does appear to be a recognizable pattern in these data.

Characteristics of Contemporary White andJapanese American Households

Table 14.4 displays some descriptive characteristics for White households in terms of basic demo-graphic indicators, whereas Table 14.5 shows these characteristics for Japanese American house-holds. The indicators include the proportion residing in the Pacific region (i.e., Hawaii, Alaska,Washington, Oregon, and California), the mean age of the householder, the mean number ofchildren in the household, the mean household size (i.e., including children and adults), the pro-portion of householders with a bachelor’s degree, the official poverty rate (as defined by the U.S.Census Bureau), the mean household income (with all incomes converted to the 2008 pricelevel), and the proportion who are home owners. Table 14.4 shows that only about one in eightWhite households resides in the Pacific region, although the proportion is slightly higher amongnon-family households. By definition, one-adult households and non-family households do notinclude any children (i.e., the mean number of children for these two types of households is 0).One-adult households tend to be older, and they tend to have lower household incomes in partdue to the fact they have (at most) only one earner in the household. Nonetheless, 60.12 percentof one-adult households own their own homes, and their poverty rate is lower than that of non-family households and non-marital families. By contrast, non-family households tend to beyounger and are less likely to own their own homes.

Non-marital families have the highest mean number of children (i.e., 1.23) and the lowestproportion with a bachelor’s degree (i.e., 19.3 percent). They also have a fairly high poverty rate(i.e., 17.4 percent). On average, marital families have slightly less than one child, the highest pro-portion of bachelor’s degrees, the highest household income, the lowest poverty rate, the largesthousehold size, and the highest proportion of home ownership.

Table 14.5 shows these statistics for Japanese American households. As we have described,the classification of Japanese American families is broken down in a more detailed manner.Readers should be aware, however, that the descriptive statistics in Table 14.5 for Asian-J-Whitefamilies and Black-J-White families are unreliable due to the small sample sizes for these two rel-atively uncommon household categories.

The results shown in Table 14.5 indicate that most types of Japanese American householdsare much more likely than Whites to reside in the Pacific region. This location is especially preva-lent for households with an NB-Japanese householder or spouse. Japanese language usage at


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

17

TAB

LE 1

4.4

Ch

arac

teri

stic

s o

f H

ou

seh

old

s b

y Ty

pe

for

Wh

ites

Typ

ePa

cifi

c1A

ge2

Ch

ildre

n3

Size

4B

A5

Poo

r6In

com

e7H

om

e8

One

-Adu

lt H

ouse

hold

0.

126

57.2

570

1.00

00.

291

0.14

840

,868

0.60

1

Non

-Fam

ily H

ouse

hold

0.

163

38.8

680

2.23

50.

323

0.19

074

,256

0.48

1

Non

-Mar

ital F

amili

es

0.12

147

.143

1.22

62.

856

0.19

30.

174

56,6

540.

629

Mar

ital F

amili

es0.

111

51.1

130.

916

3.00

50.

354

0.03

099

,731

0.88

0

Sour

ce:U

.S.C

ensu

s B

ure

au (

2005

–200

8).

1 Th

e pr

opor

tion

res

idin

g in

th

e Pa

cifi

c re

gion

(i.e

.,H

awai

i,A

lask

a,W

ash

ingt

on,O

rego

n,a

nd

Cal

ifor

nia

)2 T

he

mea

n a

ge o

fth

e h

ouse

hol

der

3 Th

e m

ean

nu

mbe

r of

child

ren

in t

he

hou

seh

old

4 Th

e m

ean

hou

seh

old

size

(i.e

.,in

clu

din

g ch

ildre

n a

nd

adu

lts)

5 Th

e pr

opor

tion

of

hou

seh

olde

rs w

ith

a b

ach

elor

’s d

egre

e6 T

he

offi

cial

pov

erty

rat

e (a

s de

fin

ed b

y th

e U

.S.C

ensu

s B

ure

au)

7 Th

e m

ean

hou

seh

old

inco

me

(wit

h a

ll in

com

es c

onve

rted

to

the

2008

pri

ce le

vel)

8 Th

e pr

opor

tion

th

at a

re h

ome

own

ers


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

TAB

LE 1

4.5

Ch

arac

teri

stic

s o

f H

ou

seh

old

s b

y Ty

pe

for

Jap

anes

e

Typ

ePa

cifi

c1A

ge2

Ch

ildre

n3

Size

4B

A5

Poo

r6In

com

e7H

om

e8Ja

pan

ese9

One

-Adu

lt H

ouse

hold

0.

625

53.0

980

1.00

00.

439

0.16

546

,168

0.49

20.

373

Non

-Fam

ily H

ouse

hold

0.

573

34.9

450

2.27

30.

450

0.25

777

,974

0.33

00.

254

FB-J

apan

ese

NM

-Fam

ily

0.54

853

.781

1.06

72.

700

0.27

30.

108

65,1

270.

674

0.64

7

NB-

Japa

nese

NM

-Fam

ily

0.87

159

.032

0.91

92.

690

0.29

10.

065

85,2

990.

774

0.16

0

BR-J

apan

ese

NM

-Fam

ily

0.61

842

.819

1.19

03.

068

0.25

30.

193

61,2

690.

527

0.06

7

J-W

hite

NM

-Fam

ily

0.25

136

.919

1.20

62.

954

0.16

70.

159

57,7

790.

567

0.01

0

Whi

te-F

B-Ja

pane

se F

amily

0.

412

51.3

700.

714

2.77

50.

523

0.02

210

2,09

60.

789

0.24

5

Whi

te-N

B-Ja

pane

se F

amily

0.

603

50.0

360.

951

3.03

50.

607

0.00

913

6,96

90.

876

0.01

8

Whi

te-B

R-Ja

pane

se F

amily

0.

398

42.8

841.

204

3.29

10.

467

0.01

612

1,87

80.

816

0.02

4

Whi

te-J

-Whi

te F

amily

0.

256

39.8

641.

227

3.29

60.

439

0.01

911

7,92

00.

813

0.00

8

FB-F

B-Ja

pane

se F

amily

0.

418

45.2

231.

054

3.10

10.

702

0.06

411

0,83

40.

382

0.93

5

NB-

NB-

Japa

nese

Fam

ily

0.93

063

.895

0.67

42.

826

0.47

50.

017

113,

858

0.92

30.

122

BR-J

-Whi

te F

amily

0.

587

47.7

351.

343

3.52

90.

504

0.06

810

7,63

70.

769

0.04

5

FB-N

B-Ja

pane

se F

amily

0.

853

60.5

620.

685

2.78

40.

508

0.01

995

,525

0.79

10.

570

FB-B

R-J-

Whi

te F

amily

0.

647

50.4

371.

063

3.16

40.

489

0.01

199

,351

0.83

00.

453

NB-

BR-J

-Whi

te F

amily

0.

891

47.4

621.

157

3.32

10.

548

0.00

313

2,34

10.

875

0.04

9

IWH

ITE-

FB-J

apan

ese

Fam

ily

0.41

748

.652

13.

042

0.66

40.

031

124,

594

0.75

00.

239

IWH

ITE-

NB-

Japa

nese

Fam

ily

0.72

050

.354

0.85

30.

851

0.67

00.

003

134,

466

0.85

10.

062

IWH

ITE-

BR-J

apan

ese

Fam

ily

0.46

444

.553

1.21

83.

303

0.54

90.

017

126,

770

0.74

20.

000

IWH

ITE-

J-W

hite

Fam

ily

0.39

045

.545

1.23

43.

352

0.47

90.

020

123,

087

0.77

60.

098

ASI

AN

-FB-

Japa

nese

Fam

ily

0.55

643

.748

0.98

83.

128

0.65

50.

041

112,

593

0.66

30.

347

ASI

AN

-NB-

Japa

nese

Fam

ily

0.90

250

.722

1.03

73.

220

0.54

30.

016

130,

305

0.86

70.

038

ASI

AN

-BR-

Japa

nese

Fam

ily

0.79

143

.877

1.36

63.

676

0.40

00.

038

107,

908

0.75

80.

025

ASI

AN

-J-W

hite

Fam

ily

0.68

941

.551

0.92

23.

102

0.40

80.

052

97,3

480.

813

0.03

7

BLA

CK

-FB-

Japa

nese

Fam

ily

0.36

847

.388

0.90

03.

025

0.30

10.

027

77,9

550.

602

0.33

0

BLA

CK

-NB-

Japa

nese

Fam

ily

0.71

446

.457

0.84

52.

876

0.55

20.

020

129,

079

0.77

30.

015

18


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

BLA

CK

-BR-

Japa

nese

Fam

ily

0.32

344

.431

1.22

53.

460

0.48

80.

000

111,

440

0.86

70.

000

BLA

CK

-J-W

hite

Fam

ily

0.00

036

.689

1.10

53.

784

0.00

00.

464

40,9

350.

536

0.00

0

HIS

PAN

IC-F

B-Ja

pane

se F

amily

0.

594

46.0

081.

076

3.21

70.

322

0.04

085

,731

0.66

00.

167

HIS

PAN

IC-N

B-Ja

pane

se F

amily

0.

794

45.2

671.

324

3.49

10.

384

0.00

612

1,10

50.

877

0.00

8

HIS

PAN

IC-B

R-Ja

pane

se F

amily

0.

560

40.8

901.

401

3.59

60.

332

0.04

894

,444

0.76

10.

009

HIS

PAN

IC-J

-Whi

te F

amily

0.

306

39.9

321.

654

3.84

10.

313

0.01

310

4,60

50.

772

0.00

8

OTH

ER-J

apan

ese

Fam

ily

0.63

145

.552

1.10

03.

227

0.39

00.

050

101,

730

0.74

10.

114

Sour

ce:U

.S.C

ensu

s B

ure

au (

2005

–200

8).

1 Th

e pr

opor

tion

res

idin

g in

th

e Pa

cifi

c re

gion

(i.e

.,H

awai

i,A

lask

a,W

ash

ingt

on,O

rego

n,a

nd

Cal

ifor

nia

)2 T

he

mea

n a

ge o

fth

e h

ouse

hol

der

3 Th

e m

ean

nu

mbe

r of

child

ren

in t

he

hou

seh

old

4 Th

e m

ean

hou

seh

old

size

(i.e

.,in

clu

din

g ch

ildre

n a

nd

adu

lts)

5 Th

e pr

opor

tion

of

hou

seh

olde

rs w

ith

a b

ach

elor

’s d

egre

e6 T

he

offi

cial

pov

erty

rat

e (a

s de

fin

ed b

y th

e U

.S.C

ensu

s B

ure

au)

7 Th

e m

ean

hou

seh

old

inco

me

(wit

h a

ll in

com

es c

onve

rted

to

the

2008

pri

ce le

vel)

8 Th

e pr

opor

tion

wh

o ar

e h

ome

own

ers

9 Th

e pr

opor

tion

of

hou

seh

olde

rs w

ho

repo

rt s

peak

ing

Japa

nes

e at

hom

e

19


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

home is relatively uncommon except for those households that have an FB-Japanese householderor spouse (Kim and Min, 2010). At one extreme, 93.5 percent of FB-FB Japanese families speakJapanese at home, but the much smaller 1.8 percent figure for White-NB-Japanese families ismore typical of households that do not include an FB-Japanese.

In terms of the mean age of the householders, White-NB Japanese families are substantiallyolder than White-BR-Japanese families who are in turn older than White-J-White families. Thesame general pattern is even more evident among non-marital families. Although only sugges-tive, these results are consistent with the assumption that J-White householders may tend to havea higher generational status than BR-Japanese householders who in turn may tend to have ahigher generational status than NB-Japanese householders. The mean age of householdersamong NB-NB Japanese families is notably older (i.e., about sixty-four years) suggesting thatmany of these marriages may have occurred in earlier decades when racial intermarriage amongthe nisei was lower.

In general, Japanese American families tend to have above-average educational attainment.In regard to the most common marital family categories, the proportion with a bachelor’s degreeis 52.3 percent among White-FB-Japanese families, 47.5 percent among NB-NB Japanese fami-lies, 60.7 percent among White-NB-Japanese families, 70.2 percent among FB-FB Japanese fami-lies, 46.7 percent among White-BR-Japanese families, and 54.3 percent among Asian-NB-Japanese families (as shown in Table 14.5) in comparison to the substantially lower proportion of35.4 percent among White marital families (as shown in Table 14.4). Our results seem largelyconsistent with the broad conclusion reached by Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo (2006) that JapaneseAmericans most closely associated with FB-Japanese tend to have higher levels of educationalattainment. Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo (2006) further find high levels of educational attainmentamong persons who identify as Chinese-Japanese, which seems consistent with the above men-tioned result for Asian-NB-Japanese families because intermarriage with Chinese is likely to bethe most common type of Asian intermarriage for Japanese Americans (Takei, Sakamoto, andWoo, 2006).

Not surprisingly, other results in Table 14.5 indicate that Japanese American householdtypes with high proportions of bachelor’s degrees tend to have high household incomes and lowpoverty rates. For example, among NB-NB Japanese families, mean household income is$113,858 and the poverty rate is 1.7 percent. These results indicate a higher level of socioeco-nomic status than for White marital families whose mean household income is $99,731 andwhose poverty rate is 3.0 percent, as shown in Table 14.4. In general, most types of JapaneseAmerican households have higher levels of socioeconomic attainments than Whites.

CONCLUSION

Researchers have become so fixated on the drama of the World War II internment that the generalstudy of contemporary Japanese Americans themselves has been unfortunately neglected inrecent years. We have sought to help fill this research gap by investigating the Japanese Americanfamily using recent demographic data. Our results indicate major changes since the time of thefirst half of the twentieth century that figured prominently in the now-famous descriptions of theclassical issei family and the nisei family as provided by Kitano (1976). Indeed, the changes thathave occurred since that era have been so substantial as to amount to nothing less than a radicaltransformation of Japanese American family patterns.

First of all, Japanese American family patterns reflect the trends of modern societies in gen-eral. One-adult households and non-family households have now become commonplace even



M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

though many of them would have been considered rather unusual in the early part of the twenti-eth century. Furthermore, racial intermarriage appears to have become the dominant patternamong Japanese Americans. Table 14.3 implies that 45.0 percent of marital Japanese Americanfamilies involve intermarriage with a White. The percentage would be increased to 48.5 percent ifforeign-born Whites (i.e., IWhites) were added to that figure.

By contrast, Table 14.3 indicates that only about 31.5 percent of marital Japanese Americanfamilies refer to households where both spouses are Japanese American even after expanding thedefinition of that group to include bi-racial Japanese (i.e., BR-Japanese) and Whites who identifyas having some Japanese ancestry (i.e., J-Whites). The modern equivalents of the classical isseiand nisei families (i.e., the FB-FB Japanese family and the NB-NB Japanese family, respectively)represent only about 15.9 percent of marital Japanese American families. Even that modest figureis likely to decline in the near future because the elderly average age of NB-NB Japanese familiessuggests that more recent cohorts of NB-Japanese may be increasingly turning to intermarriage.

These findings suggest why the term yonsei (i.e., “fourth generation” in Japanese) has neverreally become popular in the Japanese American community. Although persons who are fourth-generation Japanese American certainly exist (i.e., the great-grandchildren of issei immigrantsfrom Japan), these persons are likely to be multi-racial due to the high level of intermarriage that,in the contemporary period, often begins with the very first issei immigrants. Given this low levelof endogamous marriage among Japanese Americans, only a very small proportion of fourth-generation descendents are likely to think of themselves as having a primarily Japanese heritage.For this reason, the Japanese term yonsei is unlikely to be viewed as being very appropriate formost fourth-generation descendents of issei immigrants.

At the same time, however, some preservation of Japanese American identity seems to besuggested as well by our results. The mere fact that many bi-racial individuals choose to be enu-merated as being partly Japanese is itself indicative of the significance of this ethnic identity tothose individuals. This point may even be even more applicable to J-Whites who apparently seekto maintain some identity relating to Japanese Americans even as they enumerate themselves assingle-race Whites. Given that the ACS questionnaire uses the word ancestry rather thanancestries (although multiple responses are considered acceptable), the existence of J-Whites issuggestive of a notable desire to be recognized as having some Japanese American heritage.12

In terms of what might be somewhat more precariously referred to as Japanese Americansubculture, our results are also suggestive of some continuation of traditional patterns. As wasdiscussed, high levels of educational attainment have been a historic characteristic of JapaneseAmericans (at least among those who were schooled in the United States). Immigrant JapaneseAmericans have adapted to life in the United States by promoting the education of their children,which is facilitated by the cohesiveness of Japanese families. Contemporary Japanese Americansto some extent maintain this tradition by tending to have higher rates of college completion. Inparticular, Japanese Americans most closely associated with FB-Japanese tend to have the highestlevels of educational attainment as was also investigated by Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo (2006).

An additional aspect of some enduring subcultural aspects of Japanese Americans is theirgreater propensity to intermarry with (non-Japanese) Asian Americans (i.e., Asians). That is,Japanese Americans are much more likely to intermarry with Asians than with AfricanAmericans, Hispanics, or immigrant Whites, even though each of these latter three groups aresubstantially larger than Asians in terms of population. Although non-Japanese Asian Americans

12As discussed by Takei, Sakamoto and Woo (2006), the actual number of “single-race whites” with some Japanese ances-try is likely to be underestimated in Census data.



M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

are obviously not Japanese in terms of their ethnic heritage, some subcultural similaritiesbetween East Asian Americans and Japanese Americans are evident in their common tendenciesto achieve high levels of educational attainment as well as perhaps other characteristics relating tofamily processes (Min, 1995; Sakamoto, Goyette, and Kim, 2009; Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo,2006; Xie and Goyette, 2004).

In our view, this transformation of Japanese American family patterns should be viewed aswelcome change associated with the more multicultural ethos that America has embraced in thetwenty-first century. Gone is the era when complete “Anglo-conformity” or “hyper-assimilation”was required for access to opportunities for advancement in educational and labor market insti-tutions (Takei, Sakamoto, and Woo, 2006). Any nostalgic yearning for the traditional family pat-terns of the twentieth century is clearly unwarranted because contemporary Japanese Americansnow have much more freedom to identify and live according to their own preferences in regard totheir own chosen ethnic identities, household arrangements, and socioeconomic attainments.Japanese Americans today are free to intermarry, and the fact that they do so in large proportionswith the predominantly native-born members of the majority group (i.e., Whites) suggests thatsocietal prejudice and discrimination against Japanese Americans—once exemplified by misce-genation laws—are no longer systematically endemic. Overall, these aspects of the racial and eth-nic relations of the twenty-first century are consistent with Masaoka’s (1942:3) prophetic visionof “that greater America which is to come” as well as with the kodomo no tame ni spirit of the isseiand nisei ancestors of many contemporary Japanese Americans.


ReferencesAkiba, D. 2006. “Japanese Americans.” In P. G. Min

(Ed.), Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends andIssues (2nd ed., pp. 148–177). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Alston, J. P., and I. Takei. 2005. Japanese Business:Culture and Practices. New York: iUniverse Inc.

Aoki, M. 1988. Information, Incentives, and Bargainingin the Japanese Economy. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bai, M. 1995. “He Said No to Internment.” New YorkTimes Magazine. December 25, 1995, p. 38.

Barringer, H. R., R. W. Gardner, and M. J. Levin. 1993.Asian and Pacific Islanders in the United States. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

Beattie, M. 1987. Codependent No More: How to StopControlling Others and Start Caring for Yourself. SanFrancisco, CA: Harper/Hazelden.

Ben-Ari, E. 1996. “From Mothering to Othering:Organization, Culture, and Nap Time in a JapaneseDay-Care Center.” Ethos 24, 136–164.

Bonacich, E., and J. Modell. 1980. The Economic Basis ofEthnic Solidarity. Berkeley University of CaliforniaPress.

Borovoy, A. 2001. “Recovering from Codependence inJapan.” American Ethnologist 28, 94–118.

Bumpass, L. 1990. “What’s Happening to the Family?Interactions Between Demographic and InstitutionalChange.” Demography 27, 483–493.

Caplan, N., M. H. Choy, and J. K. Whitmore. 1991.Children of the Boat People. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.

Caudill, W., and G. De Vos. 1956. “Achievement,Culture and Personality: The Case of JapaneseAmericans.” American Anthropologist 58,1102–1126.

Caudill, W., and D. W. Plath. 1974. “Who Sleeps byWhom? Parent-Child Involvement in UrbanJapanese Families.” In T. S. Lebra and W. P. Lebra(Eds.), Japanese Culture and Behavior: SelectedReadings. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Cheng, S., and B. Starks. 2002.“Racial Differences in theEffects of Significant Others on Students’Educational Expectations.” Sociology of Education75, 306–327.

Chin, A. 2005. “Long-Run Labor Market Effects ofJapanese American Internment During World WarII on Working-Age Male Internees.” Journal of LaborEconomics 23, 491–525.

Conner, J. W. 1974. “Acculturation and FamilyContinuities in Three Generations of Japanese


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


Americans.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 36,159–165.

Daniels, R. 1988. Asian America: Japanese and Chinesein the United States Since 1850. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Darity, W., Jr., J. Dietrich, and D. K. Guilkey. 1997.“Racial and Ethnic Inequality in the United States: ASecular Perspective,” American Economic Review87:301–305.

De Vos, G. 1973. Socialization for Achievement.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Doi, T. 1971. The Anatomy of Dependence. Tokyo, Japan:Kodansha International.

Featherman, D. L., and R. M. Hauser. 1978. Opportunityand Change. New York: Academic Press.

Fejgin, N. 1995. “Factors Contributing to the AcademicExcellence of American Jewish and Asian Students.”Sociology of Education 68, 18–30.

Flewelling, S., and G. Hirabayashi. 1994. Stories from aPacific Northwest Japanese American Community.Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Fukutake, T. 1981. Japanese Society Today. Tokyo, Japan:University of Tokyo Press.

Goyette, K., and Y. Xie. 1999. “Educational Expectationsof Asian American Youths: Determinants and EthnicDifferences.” Sociology of Education 72, 22–36.

Hieshima, J. A., and B. Schneider. 1994.“IntergenerationalEffects on the Cultural and Cognitive Socialization ofThird and Fourth Generation Japanese Americans.”Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 15,319–327.

Hirschman, C., and M. G. Wong. 1986. “TheExtraordinary Educational Attainment of Asian-Americans: A Search for Historical Evidence andExplanations.” Social Forces 65, 1–27.

Hofstadter, R. 1963. Anti-Intellectualism in AmericanLife. New York: Knopf.

Hosokawa, B. 1992. Nisei: The Quiet Americans. Niwot:The University Press of Colorado.

Ishida, H. 1993. Social Mobility in Contemporary Japan.Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Ishida, H., S. Spilerman, and K.-H. Su. 1997.“Educational Credentials and Promotion Chancesin Japanese and American Organizations.” AmericanSociological Review 62, 866–882.

Jiobu, R. M. 1988. “Ethnic Hegemony and the Japaneseof California.” American Sociological Review 53,353–367.

Kao, G. 1995. “Asian-Americans as Model Minorities? ALook at Their Academic Performance.” AmericanJournal of Education 103, 121–159.

Kao, G., and M. Tienda. 1995. “Optimism andAchievement: The Educational Performance ofImmigrant Youth.” Social Science Quarterly 76, 1–19.

Kibria, N. 2002. Becoming Asian American: Second-Generation Chinese and Korean American Identities.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kim, C., and P. G. Min. 2010. “Marital Patterns and Useof Mother Tongue at Home among Native-BornAsian Americans.” Social Forces 89, 233–256.

Kim, S. Y., and V. Y. Wong. 2002. “Assessing Asian andAsian American Parenting: A Review of theLiterature.” In K. Kurasaki, S. Okazaki, and S. Sue(Eds.), Asian American Mental Health: AssessmentTheories and Methods (pp. 185–201). New York:Kluwer.

Kitano, H. H. L. 1976. Japanese Americans: TheEvolution of a Subculture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Kitano, H. H. L., and R. Daniels. 1995. Asian Americans:Emerging Minorities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Kitano, H. H. L., and A. Kikumura. 1980. “The JapaneseAmerican Family.” In R. Endo, S. Sue, and N. N.Wagner (Eds), Asian Americans: Social andPsychological Perspectives (pp. 3–16). Ben Lomond,CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Kitano, K. J., and H. H. L. Kitano. 1998. “The Japanese-American Family.” In C. H. Mindel, R. W.Habenstein, and R. Wright Jr. (Eds.), Ethnic Familiesin America (4th ed., pp. 311–330). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kumagai, H. A., and A. K. Kumagai. 1986. “The Hidden‘I’ in Amae: ‘Passive Love’ and Japanese SocialPerception.” Ethos 14, 305–320.

Lareau, A. 2002. “Invisible Inequality: Social Class andChildrearing in Black Families and White Families.”American Sociological Review 67, 747–776.

Levine, G., and D. Montero. 1973. “Socio-EconomicMobility Among Three Generations of JapaneseAmericans.” Journal of Social Issues 29, 33–48.

Lyman, S. M. 1974. Chinese Americans. New York:Random House.

Mare, R. D., and C. Winship. 1988. “Ethnic and RacialPatterns of Educational Attainment and SchoolEnrollment.” In G. D. Sandefur and M. Tienda(Eds.), Divided Opportunities: Minorities, Poverty,and Social Policy (pp. 173–203). New York: PlenumPress.

Masaoka, M. 1942, April 5. “Conscience and theConstitution: Japanese American Citizen LeagueBulletin #142” (accessesd April 20, 2011).


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


McKenna, J. J. 1996.“Sudden Infant Death Syndrome inCross-Cultural Perspective: Is Infant-ParentCosleeping Protective?” Annual Review ofAnthropology 25, 201–216.

Meredith, G. M. 1966.“Amae and Acculturation AmongJapanese-American College Students in Hawaii.”Journal of Social Psychology 70, 171–180.

Min, P. G. 1995. Asian Americans: Contemporary Trendsand Issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

———. “Asian Immigration: History andContemporary Trends.” In P. G. Min (Ed.), AsianAmericans: Contemporary Trends and Issues (2nded., pp. 7–31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nee, V., and H. Y. Wong. 1985. “Asian AmericanSocioeconomic Achievement: The Strength of theFamily Bond.” Sociological Perspectives 28, 281–306.

Nishi, S. M. 1995. “Japanese Americans.” In P. G. Min(Ed.), Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends andIssues (pp.95–133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Brien, D. J., and S. S. Fugita. 1991. The JapaneseAmerican Experience. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.

Okihiro, G. Y. 1994. Margins and Mainstreams. Seattle:University of Washington Press.

Ono, H. 2004. “College Quality and Earnings in Japan.”Industrial Relations 43, 595–617.

Reischauer, E. O. 1977. The Japanese. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Rothbaum, F, M. Pott, H. Azuma, K. Miyake, and J.Weisz. 2000. “The Development of CloseRelationships in Japan and the United States: Pathsof Symbiotic Harmony and Generative Tension.”Child Development 71, 1121–1142.

Sakamoto, A., and S. Furuichi. 1997. “Wages amongWhite and Japanese American Male Workers.”Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 15,177–206.

Sakamoto, A., and D. A. Powers. 1995. “Education andthe Dual Labor Market for Japanese Men.” AmericanSociological Review 60, 222–246.

Sakamoto, A., K. A. Goyette, and C. Kim. 2009.“Socioeconomic Attainments of Asian Americans.”Annual Review of Sociology 35, 255–276.

Sakamoto, A., C. Kim, and I. Takei. Forthcoming.“Moving Out of the Margins and Into theMainstream: The Demographics of AsianAmericans in the New South.” In press in K. Y. Joshiand J. Desai (Eds.), Asian Americans and the NewSouth. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Sakamoto, A., J. Liu, and J. Tzeng. 1998. “The DecliningSignificance of Race Among Chinese and Japanese

American Men.” Research in Social Stratification andMobility 16, 225–246.

Sakamoto, A., H.-H. Wu, and J. Tzeng. 2000. “TheDeclining Significance of Race Among AmericanMen During the Latter Half of the TwentiethCentury.” Demography 37, 41–51.

Schneider, B., and S. Lee. 1990. “A Model for AcademicSuccess: The School and Home Environment of EastAsian Students.” Anthropology and EducationQuarterly 21, 358–377.

Schneider, B., J. A. Hieshima, S. Lee, and S. Plank. 1994.“East-Asian Academic Success in the United States:Family, School, and Community Explanations.” In P.M. Greenfield and R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Roots of Minority Child Development (pp.323–349). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shimahara, N. K. 1986. “The Cultural Basis of StudentAchievement in Japan.” Comparative Education 22,19–26.

Smith, R. J. 1983. Japanese Society: Tradition, Self, and theSocial Order. London: Cambridge University Press.

Stevenson, D. L., and D. P. Baker. 1992. “ShadowEducation and Allocation in Formal Schooling:Transition to University in Japan.” American Journalof Sociology 97, 1639–1657.

Stevenson, H. W., and J. W. Stigler. 1992. The LearningGap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We CanLearn from Japanese and Chinese Education. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Sun, Y. 1998. “The Academic Success of East-Asian-American Students: An Investment Model.” SocialScience Research 27, 432–456.

Tafoya, S. M., H. Johnson, and L. E. Hill. 2004. WhoChooses to Choose Two? Washington, DC: PopulationReference Bureau and the Russell Sage Foundation.

Takahashi, J. 1997. Nisei/Sansei: Shifting JapaneseAmerican Identities and Politics. Philadelphia, PA:Temple University Press.

Takei, I., A. Sakamoto, and H. Woo. 2006.“SocioeconomicDifferentials Among Single-Racial and Multi-RacialJapanese Americans: Further Evidence onAssimilation in the Post-Civil Rights Era.” Paper pre-sented at the 2006 Population Association of Americaannual meeting, Los Angeles, CA.

Thomas, D. S. 1952. The Salvage. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Tuan, M. 1998. Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites?The Asian Ethnic Experience Today. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. “American CommunitySurvey.” http://www.census.gov/acs/www.


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM


———. 2006. “American Community Survey.” http://www.census.gov/acs/www.



Wilson, R. A., and B. Hosokawa. 1980. East to America:A History of the Japanese in the United States. NewYork: Morrow.

Wong, M. G. 1990. “The Education of White, Chinese,Filipino and Japanese Students: A Look at ‘High Schooland Beyond.’” Sociological Perspectives 33, 355–374.

———. 1995. “Chinese Americans.” In P. G. Min (Ed.),Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues(2nd ed., pp. 58–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Xie, Y., and K. Goyette. 2004. Asian Americans: ADemographic Portrait. New York: Russell SageFoundation.


M14_MIND8390_05_SE_C14.qxd 5/10/11 2:11 PM

The Japanese American Family

Documents

Transcript of The Japanese American Family