Native American Identity

A simple definition of identity is “the name we call ourselves.” Yet things are inevitably more complicated than that, for identity is both externally imposed and internally ascribed; identity claims involve individual agency yet exist within a larger sociohistorical context. Claiming a Native American identity, as with all racial/ethnic identities, is more contested, complex, and constrained by context than the claiming of a White ethnic identity. An analysis of Native American identity, in particular, emphasizes the role of external ascription in the process of identity construction. This entry reviews various ways in which Native identity claims can be challenged: along the lines of physical appearance or in terms of legal, biological, and cultural authenticity. Such contestation over identities emphasizes that while communities struggle to define their members, they do not always do so under conditions of their own choosing.

Sociological research on race and ethnicity has shifted in recent decades from a more structural analysis of race, ethnicity, and racial/ethnic relations to an analysis of racial/ethnic identity. For individuals designated as racial minorities, identity challenges and constraints are even greater than they are for individuals designated as White Americans, as legal proscriptions and physical appearance influence external ascription. For racial minorities, the dominant group exercises its power through government to define who belongs in [Page 955]which racial category. Historically, in the case of African Americans, we see the imposition of the so-called one-drop rule, where racially mixed individuals are classified as Black. For Native peoples, this manifests itself in the opposite direction, with the federal government insisting on a specific blood quantum, often inconsistent with tribal membership criteria, for determining whether or not one is Native American. Owing to the elaborate requirements for officially establishing one's blood quantum, this is a practice that manages to exclude many people of Native heritage from officially being recognized as such.

Whites, as the dominant racial group, play a significant role through legal and political maneuvering in determining who is and who is not “Native,” in much the same way they determine who is and who is not “Black.” Interaction between dominant and subordinate groups is an example of asymmetrical power relations, which play themselves out in terms of racial/ethnic identity assessment: In essence, certain groups exercise power over others to define group membership. Despite such structural constraints, it is imperative that we not disregard the notion of agency in claiming a racial/ethnic identity.