The three terms of persistence, resistance, and coexistence each serve as a shorthand for ways of looking at regional or ethnic identity in plural societies. Each also infers as its opposite some type of cultural extinction or erasure. These terms present different perspectives on cultural identity, however, with different implications for an understanding of identity in Lavialle. They complement each other when used together.

The notion of cultural persistence has been around for a while in anthropological discourse, and suggests that certain minority cultures or indigenous peoples are resilient in the face of pressures from dominant cultures to conform or disappear. This concept is related to an older notion of cultural survival in anthropology, and it can sometimes be used to suggest an essentialist view of cultures as intact and surviving, rather than changing in response to dominant cultures. Persistence is, however, a worthwhile concept, because it prompts questions about why certain cultures remain viable and others do not, and encourages us to question the whole process and nature of cultural survival.

The notion of resistance has become fairly popular as a way to talk about relationships between subordinate cultural groups and dominant cultures, and, in the context of identity, stresses the refusal of social groups to change in certain ways. It also may infer the active assertion of alternative identities among subordinate peoples. Resistance suggests that cultural identity must be actively maintained in the face of pressures from dominant culture to conform, and that survival can be a struggle.