One of the first lessons that consultants learn is that perspectives shape truths; in other words, the answer to some of our questions might be: it depends. This fundamental understanding influences every aspect of our evaluation, research, and communications work, where context, perspective, and nuance play crucial roles in shaping outcomes and interpretations. Similarly, within the context of the United States, the question of how to refer to individuals of Latin American descent reflects this complexity. We all have different preferences, and the evolution of terminology has been a journey marked by the intention to be inclusive and culturally sensitive, but also pushback.
Both of Lighthouse Global's founders are first-generation Latin-American immigrants, who have grappled with defining their identities in this new context. This journey has led us to gain a profound sense of cultural humility and a commitment to exploring how our professional practices can ensure that our participants feel comfortable defining their own identities.
Today, we would like to delve into the use of "Latinx." Initially, our gut reaction was to reject this term because it does not align phonetically with Spanish. However, we invite you to join us in exploring this issue to see how our perspective has evolved.
The nomenclature "Latino or Latina" holds institutional recognition by the Royal Spanish Academy (RSE), an institution dedicated to linguistic standardization across the Spanish-speaking world. However, it has been criticized for not adequately reflecting the diversity of gender identities within the population, prompting debate about its inclusivity. In response, the use of the "X" as a gender-neutral alternative has gained traction, particularly in the United States.
The term "Latinx" emerged in the early 2000s, to represent intersectional identity that challenges binary concepts of gender and ethnicity (Garcia, 2017). It gained traction among various communities, particularly AfroLatinx and indigenous-centered Spanish-speaking groups, as a tool for inclusivity and decolonization. The "X" in Latinx symbolizes resistance to gender norms and linguistic erasure, reflecting a shift towards acknowledging diverse gender identities within the Latin American diaspora.
Despite its increasing popularity, the term "Latinx" faces challenges. According to the Pew Research Center (2019), only 3% of the Latin population uses Latinx and 76% have not heard about it. Additionally, within higher education contexts, there are inconsistencies in understanding and usage (Salinas Jr, 2020). Some argue that Latinx overlooks linguistic integrity and feels foreign to native speakers. This sparked discussions around alternative terms, leading to the emergence of "Latine."
Latine provides a culturally and linguistically grounded alternative to Latinx. By aligning with the Romance language roots of Spanish and Portuguese, Latine integrates into linguistic landscapes while removing gender-specific elements. This shift towards Latine acknowledges and respects the rich cultural heritage of Latin America, offering a more inclusive term for self-identification. This perspective resonated more with our preferences about the issue.
Another alternative term is "Latin," which presents a departure from traditional gendered language by omitting the use of "o" or "a." This omission aligns more closely with the grammatical structure of the English language, where gender-neutral terms are often preferred. By adopting "Latin," individuals can sidestep the inherent gender bias present in languages like Spanish, where masculine and feminine forms are prevalent. This shift promotes inclusivity and reflects a conscious effort to modernize language usage in line with evolving societal norms. Furthermore, "Latin" serves as a concise and accessible term that resonates with a broad audience, transcending linguistic barriers and facilitating clearer communication in multicultural settings.
In pursuit of linguistic neutrality while upholding grammatical integrity in both Spanish and English, other terms have been utilized, including "Latin community" (comunidad latina), "Latin population" (población latina), and "Latin person" (persona latina). These terms also reflect diverse demographics without gender-specific connotations, thereby fostering inclusivity and linguistic harmony.
Considering all of this, what term should we adopt across our professional practices at Lighthouse Global? The answer is: It depends! When it comes to research and evaluation, the choice of terminology must be carefully tailored to fit the specific context our team is navigating. For example, when crafting participant-facing documents like recruitment language, factors such as the generational, educational, and linguistic backgrounds of the prospective participants come into play (Miranda et al., 2023). Older participants may feel more connected to terms like "Latino/a/e," which include gender-specific endings, while younger individuals with monolingual backgrounds and diverse educational experiences might find "Latine" more fitting. On the other hand, individuals with multicultural upbringings may prefer the term "Latinx." While ideally, participants should have the autonomy to self-identify, this approach can present challenges for statistical accuracy. Therefore, a nuanced understanding of the diverse preferences within the Latin American community is crucial in determining the most appropriate terminology for our evaluation practices.
Stay tuned to learn along with us in our entrepreneurship journey!
References
Garcia, C. (2017). In defense of Latinx. Composition Studies, 45(2), 210-212.
Salinas Jr, C. (2020). The complexity of the “x” in Latinx: How Latinx/a/o students relate to, identify with, and understand the term Latinx. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 19(2), 149-168.
Lopez, M. Krogstad J. Passel J. (2019). Who is Hispanic? Pew Research Center. Consult here
Miranda, A. R., Perez-Brumer, A., & Charlton, B. M. (2023). Latino? Latinx? Latine? A call for inclusive categories in epidemiologic research. American Journal of Epidemiology, 192(12), 1929-1932.
Comments