Chapter 5 - Constructing and Deconstructing Race

What is Race?

Asking the question “What is race?” almost seems to be a rhetorical question (one which everyone knows the answer to and no response is expected). We “know” what race is. We can see it in each person we encounter – no matter how casually. Race is skin color . . . but is it? Race is physical features and skin color . . . but is it? Race is type of hair and physical features and skin color . . . but is it? If the physical cues that we learn to mark the distinction between races were simply what we see, then race wouldn’t be a discussion item. Not only do we learn the intricate physical coding of race, we learn what the code means and how to act and think within that meaning.

After years of study, reflection, and discussion, I have come to the following definition of race. Race is a socially constructed artifact that categorizes people based on visual differences which are imputed to indicate invisible differences. These categorizations are amorphous and fluid over time which reflects their social rather than physical basis. We have already discussed social construction and ascribed status. Similar to our discussion of sex and gender, race is an ascribed status based on visual cues that are assumed to reflect things that are internal to the individual – intelligence, emotional nature, moral characteristics etc. We can call these the “meanings” of racial coding. Like other social constructions, they change over time as society changes. However, because of their integration into the social stratification system they tend to persist in maintaining racial statuses. As a social construct race is created and maintained through social processes and social structure. The social processes include the broad areas of socialization and the cultural “story,” and social structuring is reflected in such things as laws and legislation, education, and the stratification system itself.

In mainstream U.S. society, race and ethnicity are defined as essentially synonymous. In fact, most forms one fills out today asks one’s ethnicity rather than one’s race even though the responses are racial categories. Ethnicity, however can have little to do with race and it is not appropriate to use them interchangeably. Ethnicity reflects cultural differences, and an ethnic group is a people who share a historical and cultural heritage (and frequently have a sense of group identity). Being part of an ethnic group is more than a blood relationship or a national origin relationship. It means that we, personally, have been raised in (or socialized in) the tradition of a specific culture.

The current use of the term ethnicity is generally inappropriate for a number of reasons. First is the synonymous usage for race. Second is that it is being used to not reflect cultural identity, but national history or national ancestry (potentially a very different thing). Third, for someone to say that their ethnicity is German/French/Dutch for example may be totally meaningless for the individual because for many there is no sense of “belongingness” to those cultural groups. Fourth, US ethnic identities are shaped within the context of the processes of US society and are not synonymous with those holding those ethnic ties in other areas of the world. For example, people in the U.S. who consider themselves “ethnically Italian” have a different culture and identity than Italians in Italy who are also ethnically Italian.

Race, ethnicity, ancestry, and national origin have gotten all lumped together through various mechanisms. (The concept of nations and dominant cultures was discussed in Chapter 1, so I will not repeat that here). Essentially what has happened in the United States is that ethnicity is coded to race. For example - there is really no ethnicity that is “Hispanic,” but rather numerous groups who have cultural links to Spain (which is what “Hispanic” means). While some cultural characteristics may overlap from one “Hispanic” group to another, ethnically they are distinct. Further, “Hispanics” can be of any racial group. For example, the general use of the term Hispanic in most of the U.S. (inaccurately) conjures the image of “Mexican” and more specifically Mestizo – people who are a combined racial ancestry of Spanish army and subsequent (largely European) immigration, and the original indigenous population. “Mestizo” literally means mixed blood. In the United States we call someone “mixed blood” if they have the combined racial ancestry of European American and one or Native American tribes, and more generically “mixed race” or “multiracial” for racial combinations. (See the discussion later in this chapter concerning multiracial individuals.)

I generally use the term “racialized ethnics” when people use the term ethnicity because of the way that we link race to ethnicity. Ethnic groups, by and large, fit within the context of the racial structure of the United States and not the reverse. This is as true for European Americans as it is for any other racial or ethnic group.

Let’s take a minute to think about this. When we hear or think about African Americans, do we think of people who are generically from Africa (which is a continent of many nations, many “races” and thousands of cultures), or do we think of Black Americans? If we think that African American is a cultural designation, what does that mean? Is it affected by our racial assumptions? If we have a person whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from Africa are they African American? Are they African American if they and their parents are “white?” People in the U.S., regardless of race, generally assume that African American means “black” and that African American culture means “Black culture.” We can argue that African Americans started this by “changing their name,” but this has been coopted by the mainstream society – morphed into the racial ethnic paradigm. From a cultural standpoint, we assume that someone who is “African American” (Black) comes from ancestors who were forcibly brought to this country as slaves, lived through legal segregation and Jim Crow laws, etc. What then do most people assume when the see a “black” person? They certainly don’t think they are Apache or Jamaican or Puerto Rican or Brazilian, or Spanish or English. To extend this further, if this “black” individual actually is from Africa, are they “the same” as African Americans? Do all African Americans in the popular sense of the word share a culture?

As is true with most social constructs, once we start asking questions and analyzing them they seem to not make sense any more. We ask “How in the world did we come up with that?”

So how did we come up with this odd blend of race, ethnicity and national origin? In some ways we inherited it, and in others we created it. It is a combination of “science,” myth, and law. As evolution as an explanation for species differentiation became accepted among the educated, it was applied (not surprisingly) to people. The theory was that cultural capacity went hand in hand with race. In other words, that certain races were exclusively physically capable of certain levels of culture. Since it was Western Europeans who were coming up with this theory, their civilization and race were of course at the top of this human evolutionary schema. Other peoples were seen as “less than” in a variety of ways – less civilized, less intelligent, less capable. However, this “less than” status was not something that could be changed as it was physically tied to people’s physical inheritance (race). Some races (or cultures) were determined to be so low in the evolutionary scheme as to not really be “people” at all. This was handy for countries wanting to claim territory as “animals” could not own land. Therefore, if it was decided by the (discoverer, explorer, trader, or conquistador) that the inhabitants of a territory were not human then they could freely claim the land for their country.

We can see this thinking in the labeling of some populations as savages, heathens, pagans, primitives and barbarians. We can see it in labeling of some “more advanced” groups as infidels. None of these are new terms. Even today the images these words evoke are heavily racial. The “less than” thought processes and images endure for a variety of reasons such as socialization, stories, and the media. They endure because of the persistence of segregation and its implication in inequality. In part they persist because it is profitable for them to persist: profitable in the acquisition of resources that other peoples control whether that is oil in Iraq or oil under the lands held by the U’wa in South America, or gold along the east coast of the African continent, or some place to put our chemical and nuclear waste.

Race is persistent because it involves more than labeling – even by the scientific thought of the day. It filtered down to the general European origin population and gained strength and acceptability. It was institutionalized as an acceptable justification for conquest and colonization. And it came with the early colonists to the “new world” where it took on its own special forms. We can easily see racism present in the early relations between “colonists” and “Indians.” We can see the racism of importing black slaves, and a thousand other examples. However, our focus here is not just racism, but the social construction of race. The social construction of race certainly includes ideology, but it also includes how that ideology shapes our social environment.

How did the conceptualizations of race shape races in the United States? The simple answer is by shaping the social structure and institutions. For example, a Supreme Court Judge stated in 1913 (ex parte Shantid as Syrian suing for citizenship and losing) that “a white person was a person the average well informed white American knew to be white (Lopez, 1996).” [I strongly recommend all students of race read White by Law by Ian Haney Lopez which is an excellent discussion of race in relationship to citizenship law.] In this statement, the judge is drawing on two sources of race information. One source is the scientific thought of the day (largely anthropological), and the other is upon informed (meaning familiar with the racial discussions) whites understanding of race. It also implies an understanding by the “informed” public of white racial identity and privilege. In this case, what would be seen as “fitting” to those who counted determined whether Syrians would be “white” and therefore eligible for citizenship.

This may seem unethical today, but it still underlies much of the meaning and structuring of race in the United States. The inescapable fact is that “race” and racial inequality is systemized and institutionalized within U.S. society. We still have a racial issue of “who counts” and who does not; who are “good citizens” and who are not; who are “productive members of society” and who are not. I can hear the cries of “It isn’t like that” or “I don’t think that” across the space that separates you as a reader of this book to me going about my life in Portland, Oregon. But think for a moment about the society that surrounds us. Are most of us moved to action or concern by the constant presentation of people of color as welfare recipients and criminals? Do most of us stop to question why grief counselors are sent into white schools when a student is killed in a car accident? Do most of us wonder that the nation is mobilized by school violence when it strikes white middle class schools? Do most of us notice that virtually the entire visual media is white, or that the “bad guys” in video games are generally not white? Do most of us ask the question when a white person gets a job whether they were “qualified” for the job? Do most of us question whether there might be specific racial impacts of storing toxic and nuclear waste on or near Indian Reservations? Do most of us question the strengthening of our border with Mexico and the tremendous increase in deaths that is a result of this action?

Honestly, the answers are “no,” and the reason whites especially do not notice is because the underlying message of mainstream society is “white” is better. While it is generally not stated explicitly, racial perceptions shape the world around us and “white’s” privileges and position are still being protected socially, economically, politically, and culturally – just as they were at the beginning of this nation. Ideology shapes social meanings and structure. And conversely politicians and media and any one or organization depending on “public” approval, play to the sentiments that are going to arouse support. However, it is not everyone’s support that is being solicited. It is the support of “those who count,” and usually those who count are “white.”

Socialization and Race

The same forces are at work in race socialization that are present in any other form of socialization – family, peers, schools, media, workplaces, etc. I doubt if many would argue that race is a not central feature of life in the United States. As with sex and social class it forms one of the axes around which our lives revolve. Because it is a central component in our lives it would be foolish to assume that race socialization does not exists.

Race socialization and racial identity are areas that have not been thoroughly examined, and the bulk of theory and research in this area has focused on groups of color, most especially African Americans. Hopefully, this area will expand in the near future to include other groups of color and whites. To some extent we see similar assumptions being made in the study of racial socialization and racial identity formation as are present in the society at large. Namely, that race largely means people of color, and that it is primarily a black/white issue. This focus may alternatively be explained by the predominance of African American scholars studying in this area. The emphasis of racial socialization in relationship to people of color is echoed in Stevenson and Reed’s (1996:498) definition of it: “Racial socialization is a process that encourages the teaching of cultural pride and perception for race discrimination to family members of all ages.”

Racial socialization and racial identity are not confined to groups of color, but include “whites” as well. This means that the reasons behind specific racial group socialization may vary between the races (and especially for whites) as the reality of racism and racial structuring is different for dominant and non dominant groups. While “people of color” in general are defined by the society as having a race and that it is significant, many parts of white racial socialization seem to downplay whites as a race.

Boykin and Toms (1985) argued that three types of African American racial socialization exist - Eurocentric that stressed “white” values and beliefs, socialization as minorities that stressed passivity and accommodation, and Afrocentric that stressed African and African American cultural values and pride. We could generalize their categorization to other groups of color by labeling these as assimilation, submission, and resistance/cultural integrity classifications of types of racial socialization. An assimilation-focused socialization would focus on teaching dominant group values and ways of being in the world. A submission-focused approach would focus on taking ones assigned place and role, and a resistance/cultural integrity approach would focus on self and racial group pride and struggling against the racial system.

Let’s take these classifications and see how they might be different for dominant and non-dominant group members. This will be a broad conceptual examination rather than a specific fact-based or formal theory examination. A note is needed here that different socio-historical periods are going to effect what is seen as appropriate racial socialization as, in part, racial socialization is about coping with the current meanings and structurings of race.

Assimilation

The assimilation approach for non-dominant groups would entail socializing group members as if they were dominant group members. This essentially requires that group members overlook their race (which can be difficult in a racial stratification system.) On the other hand, dominant group members would be socialized into their place as it is defined within current social context. Contemporarily, it would also generally require minimizing specific dominant race messages. Supremacist socialization would be at the far end of this spectrum for whites.

Submission

The submission approach for non-dominant groups would be seen as “natural” within a racist system as it is aimed at non-dominant groups taking their places and assigned roles within that system. The submission model for dominant group members would be rare as it would require them taking a lower status position than the racial system requires. Or they might be socialized that there is nothing they can do about (or they are not responsible for) the current system so they have to “go along.”

Resistance/Cultural Integrity

The resistance/cultural integrity approach stresses resisting the racial system for both dominant and non-dominant groups. For non-dominant groups it would most likely stress positive racial and

cultural orientation. For dominant group members, socialization would most likely stress human and social equality, positive interactions within and between racial group relations and intimate sensitivity to racial dominance. At the far end of this approach would be other cultural dominance approaches by non-dominant groups.

In reality, most people and parents do not socialize totally within one of these approaches. For non-dominant group members to survive with esteem, they may choose an external assimilation or submission approach, but teach and act within a resistence/cultural integrity approach. The social and historical context within communities and the nation most likely does affect socialization strategies (as discussed in Box 5.1 to the right).

Families and communities are not the only socialization agents, but also have a significant affect on our identity. The strategies above occur within the context of a racially unequal society that is systematized and pervasive. Regardless of parental and community messages to the contrary, the system as a whole presents and structures itself to maintain white status and power. Socialization within the family is drawn from both parent’s socialization and their experiences in the world. All parents want their children to survive and thrive. Racial socialization occurs within this context as well as the large system context.

Parents of color experience the power and effects of racism and struggle to at once provide realistic information and coping strategies, and a sense of self-worth and pride in their children. The racial socialization of most whites is generally much less explicit, but no less impactful. Whites are socialized into a system that is structured to be theirs by right, while (at least contemporarily) presented as a society that is equal to all and where racial differences don’t matter (except perhaps in the eyes of people of color). Where we might see the assimilation strategy most used with people of color would be when a European American family adopts a child who is racially and culturally different from themselves. This is because the adoptive family generally hasn’t had the socialization to pass anything else on to their child.

Certainly one of the influences on socialization has to do with the structure surrounding racial dynamics. While we may argue that the patterns presented in Box 5.1 are open to interpretation, they do highlight that broad social structure may affect the relationship between the races. However, for all of our progress from the 1880s to today, we are almost as segregated today as before desegregation started in the 1950s. This segregation has differing impacts on the races. While European Americans can with relative ease (in most situations) structure their lives to be primarily among others of their kind and in institutions and organizations organized with their values and experiences reflected, this is not the case for other racial and ethnic groups. Most “people of color” must interact on a daily basis with European Americans in institutions designed by and for European Americans. Because of pervasive personal, cultural, and institutional racism in this country, non-dominant racial groups are perpetual “others” living in at least two worlds. European Americans generally have the choice to live in one world. It helps that the social organization facilitates this so that most of the time active choice on the part of “whites” is not required. The example below is not uncharacteristic of the early experience of many European Americans. The quote is from an anonymous student in an introductory sociology class.

“In my own family I grew up in a white, middle class Catholic, predominantly female family. My family consists of my father who comes from a white westernized culture ... My mother came from an all white, strong Catholic background ... Growing up I was raised in a white suburban neighborhood. My mother took me and my three sisters to the Catholic church. At church we were taught to accept all people regardless of race. This was a strong belief in my family as well and something my parents passed down to me. Because of my parent’s beliefs I never looked upon different cultures in a negative way - because of my childhood experiences and values I learned.”

I share this example because it represents so starkly the reality of segregation. “Whites” are generally raised in a sea of white both personally in terms of family and community, and socially in terms of institutions such as churches and schools, and the stories and media they encounter. In this white surround, they learn that “everyone is equal.” Imagine yourself as a “white” child in this kind of environment. Who is “everyone?” Does “everyone” include just the people around you, or is it truly everyone? Does the question come to mind that if “everyone is equal” why aren’t people different from yourself there? The idea of equality gets linked to “whites” because it occurs largely in the absence of anyone else.

The essence of “everybody” is reflected in both written and spoken speech. We learn very early that if no racial designator is given then it is understood that the person or people being discussed are “white.” In this sense, “white” becomes the generic. Much as there were long arguments over “he” and “man” being generic terms that included “everyone.” In the case of generic “male” including everyone, the consensus has largely become that it does not. With the designation of race in communication, the assumption is that an absence of designator is the generic “anyone” of any race when what is actually meant is “white.” We are socialized to indicate the race of someone if they are not “white.” This is a process that is more innocuous and invisible than “sexed” communication, but it is no less present. The examples of this are everywhere around us. The pervasiveness of the assumption that the absence of a racial designator equals white carries over to other encompassing terms such as “human,” “everybody,” and “American.”

Segregation persists even in places that appear to have a relatively equal racial population. For example, a NY Times article (Lewin, 2000) focuses on Maplewood, New Jersey which has a roughly 50-50 split in “Black” and “White” population. The schools are highly integrated, but one of the students featured in the article “lives in a mostly black section of Maplewood with her mother.” The concern addressed in the article is why interracial friendships do not generally last in the face of so much integration. Obviously, there are pressures at work that reinforce separation of the races. These pressures seem to include issues of “development.” The following quote is striking in what is not being said:

“It happens everywhere, in the confusions of adolescence and the yearning for identity, when the most important thing in life is choosing a group and fitting in: Black children and white children come apart. They move into separate worlds. Friendships ebb and end.” (Lewin, 2000).

While not stated, it is obvious that the identity adolescents are struggling for is a racial identity; the groups they want to fit into are racial groups. But one has to wonder if these adolescents know what or how they are choosing, or if there are processes at work that are forcing the selections. In another article in the same NY Times series (see Box 5.2), two Cuban refuges who had been good friends through school and sports in Cuba come to the United States. One is “black” and one is “white.”

Here we have adults who have been friends since childhood and should have formed their identities by now, but their experience is strikingly similar to the high school students in Maplewood (and elsewhere). What has happened to these two men from another culture is that they have come into a society where race and racial identity aren’t just noticeable differences, but critical differences. They are socialized into the U.S. racial system – obviously very quickly – just as the adolescents are socialized. The power of this system is demonstrated, though not discussed, in the article. Can we reasonably expect youths to resist this power? Once again we might ask if the young people in Maplewood (and across the country) are really choosing to “stick with their own.”

The discussion here focuses in more inclusive terms on race socialization and race identity. Race socialization is a concept with various components. Certainly part of race socialization is intimate familiarity with the social components that make up racial stratification. In other words, the beliefs, expectations, stories , and structures of the society that make up “race.” Everyone is impacted by the social structuring and applied meanings of race whether they are socialized into this system or not. In other words, a casual visitor or immigrant to the United States is placed within our racial system regardless of their own personal and cultural beliefs and experience (as is demonstrated in the experience of Joel Ruiz and Achmed Valdés in Box 5.2 Ojito, 2000) .

Within this broad context of “how it works” and “what it means” we live our lives as racialized beings. In order to live our lives within the racialized system we must learn to take our places as racialized people. This means that we are socialized to be “white” or “black” or “Indian” etc. How present or important that racial identity is in our lives can vary tremendously based upon variables such as social class, gender, immigrant status or generations since immigration, cultural priorities and presence, family/community history, and the times in which we are raised and live. We tacitly acknowledge that this socialization occurs in populations of color as we accept there is African American culture, Hispanic culture, Asian culture, Arab culture, Indian tribal cultures, etc.; however, we assume that there is no socialization to be “white” or socialization into European American culture.

Here lies two of the myths of racial socialization. One, is that “white” is not a race except in very general terms, and two that there is no “white” culture. Most European Americans that I come into contact with have a hard time identifying that there even is an “American” culture, and believe that they aren’t part of it if there is one. This is in part because the dominant culture is the culture that most reflects European Americans experiences and beliefs and so is “invisible” in a way. This is reinforced by the perception that “we are all individuals” and therefore individually “choose” our beliefs, traditions, and ways of being in the world. The lie within this second perception is an equally strong belief that “people of color” in the United States do have cultures. At the heart of this lies a foundation that “whites” are individuals free to choose their lives, but that everyone else is bound to some culture and therefore not individuals (or not individuals in the same sense). This latter is reflected in a pervasive perception that an individual of color represents his/her race/culture and can speak for all of his/her group, while an individual “white” person represents his/her own opinions, and no one can represent the “white” race or “white” culture. These beliefs lead to a perception that “whites” are unencumbered by racial identity or socialization. These beliefs are in fact part of white race socialization.

Since family is a primary socialization agent for children, patterns that occur in child rearing may also be part of racial socialization and racial identity formation. A fair amount of research has been done on parenting across racial groups. Much of the race socialization research has focused (not surprisingly) on people of color (especially children and youths), and parenting styles of parents of color, with a frequent comparison point is to “whites.” From this we get a glimpse of childhood socialization for a range of racial groups. African Americans are the most consistent focus of both race socialization and racial identity issues, followed by Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans (particularly Chinese and Japanese Americans). There is virtually no inclusion of Native American tribes, Middle Eastern and Arab Americans, or even of more recent European immigrant populations.

There are patterns of racial differences that are demonstrated through these studies. Parents of color are more likely to stress education as a priority and a practice than white parents (Wagemaar and Coates, 1999; Hill and Sprague, 1999). African American children are more likely to be able to read earlier on their own and watch more educational children’s programs than either white or Latino children (2.5 hours a week, 2.1, 2.2). They are more likely than white children to have been taught letters, numbers, or words at home than white children (67% to 37%). In grades K-6, 52% of African American parents have contact with teachers three or more times a week, compared to 42% of white parents, and 38% of Hispanic parents (Wagemaar and Coates, 1999).

Certainly one consideration here is the effect of social class on the priority of education. The common assumption is that white middle class parents stress education more than other races and classes. However, African Americans regardless of social class hold education and work as a top priority. This is true for lower class whites as well, but as social class increases for whites the emphasis shifts to happiness and self-esteem (Hill and Sprague, 1999).

African American and Latino children are considerably more likely to live in families with three or more generations and extended family members than are European American children regardless of social class (Wagemaar and Coates, 1999; Phinney and Chavira, 1995). While the trend crosses all races, African American children are more likely to have an unmarried mother than white or Latino children, and African American mothers are more likely to be in the workforce and for longer periods of time than European and Hispanic Americans (African American 67%, 3.1 years; European American 56%, 2.3 years; Hispanic American 54%, 2.6 years; Wagemaar and Coates, 1999).

Asian American parents expect their children to become independent at a later age than European and African Americans, and the teenage crises that are posited as “normal human development” do not occur in Asian American families until college age or later (Stewart and Bond, 1999).

While we could go on with this kind of discussion, the data and articles are readily available for you to look at on your own. Suffice it to say that there are some significant differences in child rearing and parenting across racial groups. These differences certainly influence socialization, and reflect racial differences, but are they racial socialization? Yes they are because parents are trying to prepare their children for the world as they experience it. What is interesting in looking at these kinds of studies is that parents of color seem to be operating on broad dominant cultural messages of what it takes to succeed, but whites (while receiving the same cultural messages) have largely different priorities in their child rearing. Further, that despite the dominant cultural messages that education and hard work will lead to success, most classes of whites don’t have to stress those to have their children be successful. Instead, they are stressing happiness and self-esteem and putting less emphasis and energy into personal involvement in their children’s education than other racial groups.

Race socialization also deals more directly with race. The messages and lessons that we all receive about our specific racialized group are sometimes subtle and sometimes overt. Thomas and Speight (1999) conducted a study of racial socialization involving 175, largely middle class and college educated, African American households from three cities. They examined not only racial socialization but difference in gender in that socialization. They found that 96% of the parents in the study thought that it was important to teach their children about racial attitudes. They found that these parents socialized their daughters and sons differently around race. For daughters, information about negative stereotypes, racial and self pride, achievement and coping skills, value of the family, reality of racism, moral values, and premarital sex were stressed. For sons, they received stronger messages about negative stereotypes and societal messages, more information about coping skills, but were not given messages about premarital sex.

Certainly one of the central issues in the constructing of racial meanings and of racial socialization is the experience of multiracial individuals. This has been brought to public attention by the 2000 Census which for the first time allowed people to indicate multiracial origins. The Department of the Census and the federal government made this step because of the activism of multiracial people. Much like the situation of bisexuals under the two-gender system of the United States, multiracial and multiethnic people “did not exist” in the structuring of race. On the public level, one’s race depends on what one looks like, and on the legal level it has historically depended on the racial mixture of your parents. If you had one white and one non-white parent you generally were not considered “white.”

The racial socialization of multiracial and multiethnic children has not received a lot of attention. In fact, I found no reports or inclusions in my review of racial socialization literature. We can speculate that the racial socialization of multiracial children varies to some extent upon circumstances of the parents and the physical appearance of the child. What has happened over the past decade or so is that multiracial people have not wanted to have to choose a racial identity. Given the activism which resulted in changes to the census, we can assume that parents of multiracial children have largely encouraged children to have pride in all of their ancestry (at least over the last generation).

Within the context of racial structuring in the U.S., claiming a multiracial identity is not clear cut. First, it doesn’t exist in any culturally coherent or socially coherent way – it is still being created and re-created by individuals. Second, it flies in the face of our “pure race” socialization. At this point in time, people are generally going to respond to the race they identify you as and not as to how you perceive yourself. This can, and does, cause tremendous amounts of pain and anger for multiracial individuals. In my personal experience as a multiracial person, regardless of how I see myself, people overwhelmingly respond to me as “white.” I therefore have the benefits of white privilege, and also the consistent experience of whites saying things and having conversations they would most likely not have if a “person of color” was present. Since I do look white, and was raised in white foster homes, I also am not particularly accepted and embraced by either members of the “other” part of my ancestry, nor by “people of color” in general. In my discussions with other multiracial people, my experience is not unique.

Multiethnic people are in somewhat the same situation as the only officially recognized ethnicity in the United States is “Hispanic.” For those people who are of multiple ethnic backgrounds, socialization depends on parent’s identification with their own ethnicity. If parents have taken an assimilation approach, then while the child is multiethnic, the socialization will be largely within the context of dominant mainstream values. If the cultures represented in the family have importance to the family, then multiple cultural socialization may occur. While we generally think of this as an “immigrant” issue, that is not necessarily the case. Immigrants certainly are resocialized into mainstream U.S. values thereby having (at least) two cultural socialization experiences. Multiethnic individuals may struggle between contradictory expectations (i.e. in this group you are and act one way while in other group you are and act a different way).

Certainly one’s perceived race is going to interact significantly with other’s expectations of you as the paradigm in the U.S. links race and ethnicity. For example, if your mother is Mexican American and your father is Korean American but you “look” Mexican American, people are going to expect you to “act” “Hispanic” regardless of your ability (or desire) to do so.

From such studies as those cited here and the earlier discussion, race touches all areas of our socialization and all areas of our lives. We all have racial identities. These identities may be more central to some individuals than others or ebb and flow over our lifetimes, but they are a consequence of our racial system and socialization.

Race Socialization and the Media

As discussed in Chapter 3, the media plays a powerful role in socialization. It influences our perceptions and judgements of the world and of ourselves. This power is no less evident in the case of race than it is in the case of sex, and perhaps even more important given the lack of personal experience that many European Americans have with other Americans. The media paints a picture of the world, but it is not necessarily an accurate picture. It is a picture filtered through the lens of culture and contains the biases and ideals of that culture regardless of whether the category is entertainment or informational, aimed at children or adults.

Given the tremendous amount of television that we watch in the United States, and especially that young children and youths watch, the media has a shaping effect on our ideas of the races and our perceptions of ourselves. An example of how young this starts was shared by an African American mother at a diversity workshop I was running. She shared an experience of fixing lunch while her four year old daughter was watching TV in the other room. She heard her daughter crying and ran in to see what the problem was. Her daughter was rubbing and scratching vigorously at her skin and crying. The mother asked her what was the matter. The little girl, through her tears and sobs, said “I don’t want this skin. I want skin like the pretty white lady on TV.”

There has been considerable discussion about the effects of beauty images on women. We have probably all heard by now how the ultra thinness of female models and actresses conveys an unrealistic body image for women. Or that Barbie is unrealistically proportioned. What is not stated is that these models and actors, and most people in the media, are “white.” That it is “white” images (realistic or not), and “white” perceptions of the world (accurate or not) that are bombarding us. These images and perceptions do not only affect children.

In Chapter 3, I mentioned the ABC Nightline (2/5/99) segment called “Erasing Race” that focused on “people of color” who were undergoing plastic surgery so they could look better. “Looking better” meant looking more “white.” Dr. Harold Clavin, interviewed on the program, stated that about forty percent of his patients are trying to modify some “ethnic” feature. He also stated later in the interview that he had never had a patient who was “trying to look more ethnic.”The surgeries here were not just aimed at “beauty,” but at fitting in, being more accepted, and being more successful. Below is an excerpt from one of the interviews done for the program.

PERRI PELTZ, ABC News: (voice-over) Caleb Iida (ph), a 23-year-old flight attendant, was born in Japan. He felt like he fit in until he moved to the United States when he was 12. Now, most of his friends are not Asian, and he wishes he looked more like them.

(on camera) Caleb, but you look so good the way you are.

CALEB IIDA: No.

PERRI PELTZ: Describe the look that you want.

CALEB IIDA: I just want to look more Caucasian.

PERRI PELTZ: What's wrong with looking Japanese?

CALEB IIDA: I feel that I would fit in more if I looked more like everyone, you know? And I just -- I'm surrounded by all these people that look gorgeous to me, and I feel like I'm like the only one that's not, you know?

Lisa DeJohn, another interviewee seeking plastic surgery, replied when asked why she was seeking cosmetic surgery: “I don't feel attractive, I don't feel pretty. I don't – I feel ugly inside.”

The use of plastic surgery in this manner is not new and it is not limited to racial minorities. Elizabeth Haiken, author of a book on the history of cosmetic surgery, noted on the program that this has been going on since shortly after World War II. She notes: “There was a huge influx in immigrants to the United States - a lot of Jews, Italians, Turks, Greeks. And they began to see cosmetic surgery as a way to fit in. That's certainly very troubling for a society that styles itself as the melting pot. You know, we welcome you in. But then once you get here, you have to cut your body open to fit in. It's not exactly the image of America that most of us like to think about.”

However, the media, and society, don’t just affect the way we look at ourselves, but also create and reinforce perceptions of others. There is a strong perception in the dominant culture that “people of color” are not only experts on “race” and their “race” in particular, but that it is their primary concern. Jeremy Zilber (2000) examined news coverage of African American congressional representatives, and compared them against their participation in floor discussion and other sources such as congressional web sites. He found that while African American congress people discussed and actively participated in the full range of congressional issues, they were portrayed in the news media almost exclusively on issues of race. This portrayal not only reinforces public perceptions, it can have dramatic implications for politicians of color. It may decrease their likelihood of being elected or re-elected because “whites” may fear their issues and concerns will not be represented.

Domke and McCoy (1999) examined how systematically changing a news piece on immigration altered people’s perception of the issue. They found strong support for the “perspective that news coverage of issues, by priming subjects to focus on some considerations and relationships and not others, influences the strength of the associations between individuals' racial cognitions and their political evaluations (570).” Certainly the opinions that are formed have real life implications for people’s and group’s lives as community and political actions in identifying and resolving issues largely depends on public’s perception and opinion. Entman’s (1997) examination of the role of the media in shaping opinions about Affirmative Action supports the findings of Domke and McCoy.

Grandy and Baron’s (1998) research on the significant differences in racial(ized) issues reinforces this connection between media and opinion. They argue that under conditions of limited personal exposure people rely more on other information sources to form their opinions. Since society is structured in such a way as to minimize the amount and type of contact that most “whites” have with “people of color,” outside sources such as the media play a primary role in shaping (or reinforcing) opinions. This is not to mention that the media, and those with a political agenda, may play upon the stereotypical cultural information to move people to act or support certain actions or legislation.

Domke and McCoy (2000), and to a somewhat lesser extent Grandy and Baron (1998), point to the importance of “priming” (setting a pre-viewing context) in interpretation of the message and opinion formation (or strengthening). Given the general presentation of races in the media, and socialization regarding race and races from other sources, consumers of media are already “primed” to have opinions shaped or reinforced in specific ways.

Try an experiment. Consciously watch the media (entertainment and “informational”) for a while and see how the races (and ethnic groups) are generally depicted. One glaring thing you may notice is that non-whites and non-Americans are overwhelmingly negatively portrayed. In shows where there is a “person of color” (usually male) who is a “good guy” or on the “good team” he/she will often be killed off early in the show. This happens so consistently that the message of the expendability of males of color is unmistakable. “People of color” are frequently portrayed as “undesirable” in a number of ways. Women are frequently depicted as poor, prostitutes, drug addicts, and sexual companions. Men are frequently depicted as criminals - generally dangerous criminals – and as members of gangs or organized crime. This places into dominant cultural stereotypes that non-whites are dangerous and undesirable. It also “primes” audiences (particularly “white” audiences) to support legislation to control or penalize “people of color,” or not support legislation that would equalize social structural inequalities between the races. For example, affirmative action efforts are frequently depicted as “reverse” discrimination against “whites,” or creating an unfair advantage for “people of color” (especially African Americans).

The Institutionalization of the Race System

Perhaps more so than with sex or class, race has been physically shaped by law and legislation. Racial structuring in the United States was important from early in the history of the nation. This structuring affected not only “people of color,” but whites as well. In fact, of utmost concern was “whites.” We are going to examine three examples below that were critical in shaping the races both physically and socially – citizenship, immigration, and anti-miscegenation.

We treat race as a natural category, and in the general operation of our lives most rarely question it. However, social institutions such as legislation and law, which formally structure social relations and boundaries, can have a huge affect on the physical composition of races by drawing the boundaries of racial categories. They also directly and indirectly assist in supplying the meaning content of races (Lopez, 1996).

Law, especially in the United States is critical in another relationship to race – bringing the past into the present. It works this feat of magic through the use of precedent. Judgements that have been made previously are brought forward to influence judgements made today. For example, in the case of Thind (Oregon 1920) an Asian Indian suing for citizenship, “judge Smith ruled that ‘white persons’ would mean such persons who were in 1790 known as white Europeans” (Lopez, 1996:73). Interestingly, “Caucasian” and “white” were not considered the same thing. Asian Indians had been categorized by anthropologists as Caucasian, however, the courts (and presumably the public) did not see them as “white.” In this example we have a racial definition from 130 years previous being used as a basis for determining citizenship.

Citizenship

There are two ways to become a citizen of a country – by being born there or by being naturalized. In the United States both types of citizenship have been restricted at some point. In 1790, the U.S. Congress restricted the right to become a naturalized citizen to “any alien being a free white person who shall have resided within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States for a term of two years.” This restriction restricted the naturalization of various populations until 1952 (Lopez, 1996). Birthright citizenship (jus soli) was racially restricted until 1940, when Native Americans finally received this privilege.

Simple, historical, fact. Other than as a demonstration of racism, why would who could become a citizen be important in the construction of race? In the United States, citizenship gives people access to voice and representation. Earlier in the history of the nation it also determined the right to education; whether one could testify in court and serve on a jury; the rights and consequences of marriage; whether one could own property (or whether one was property). The limiting of citizenship gave a tremendous amount of privilege and power to “whites” that was denied to anyone else. Starting early in the foundation of this nation, and continuing until today, there are cumulative affects (materially and socially) to this restriction.

While the above is critically important, perhaps more important was defining and giving meaning to the races. If citizenship is restricted to “whites,” then who is “white?” Or conversely, who is “not white.” It was the determination of this crucial distinction that shaped not only the social construction of race, but its physical component.

Immigration Legislation

Immigration legislation was critical to shaping the physical nature of race in the United States. Through direct means such as setting quotas, to indirect means such as setting quotas based on foreign born population in an earlier period, to mandating restrictions on character or education, the United States was crafted to be a “white” nation. Certainly, a number of “non-white” people came or were brought to this country, but they were controlled (in part) by restricting them from citizenship, or specific legislation restricting virtually every aspect of their lives (where they could live and sometimes work, whether they had any rights under law, access to education or other social services, whether they could marry or bring their families etc.) The intent of legislation was clear and it established and embedded a perception that is still with us today – namely that “American” means “white.”

It is not unusual for “whites” to deny this perception. A student in one of my diversity classes responded to the question of “Why might people of color not feel fully American?” in the following way:

“Those who first settled these lands were the white Anglo Saxons who left their homeland due to religious persecution. They brought slaves to help work the lands. After the (Civil) war slaves were given their citizenship and made just as much a part of America as whites.”

“From there we see immigration pick up due to the American Dream. Being of another cultural origin made immigrants feel as though they were not the same as the white American standard. Many times it seems as though people play upon the fears of others. So when they feel as though they (people of color) are less, they act and are treated so.”

I saved this example because it captures so much misinformation, but it is “misinformation” that I see over and over again. It is misinformation that is dredged up to explain the world around us. It is what most of us learned in our K-12 education in the U.S. pitched together in an explanatory framework. The conclusion the student final comes to above is that people of color don’t feel like they are fully “American” because of their own perceived “inadequacies.” Therefore, whites accommodate that perception by treating people of color as if they were less. As you will see below, the swarm of immigrants coming to this country until relatively recently were overwhelmingly Europeans who were perceived (or eventually accepted) as “white.”

Prior to 1790, the individual states determined their own immigration policies. The federal government passed a series of acts and statues standardizing and controlling immigration. Since most states had statutes requiring a two year residency before naturalization, that is where the federal statutes started. Then it was changed to five years, and for a period of time fourteen years (Naturalization Act of June 18, 1798). This changed with the Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802 which reduced residency back to five years and set a number of standards for naturalization including that persons be of “good moral character.”

In order to see the implications of immigration policy, it is important to know what the demographics of the population were. In Tables 5.1 and 5.2 below, only whites and blacks are enumerated separately with all other groups combined. The reasons for this are 1) Native Americans were not included until 1960 in most counts of the population, and 2) the representation of other racial and ethnic groups (other than “Hispanic”) were minimal or no data was available. Also the purpose of these tables is to show the impact of immigration legislation on shaping the population. While Federal legislation of immigration began in 1790, there are no comparable census data before the 1850 census. I am making the assumption that in terms of percentage of representation, the white population of what was to become the United States was similar in 1790 or even 1590.

Table 5.1 depicts the U.S. population by race and whether they were born in the U.S. or were immigrants. So, in the 1850 census, 88.5% of whites were born here and 11.7 % were immigrants. For blacks, 99.9% were born here and .1% were born outside the country. There were no countable number of “other” races in 1850 (Native Americans were not counted). It should also be noted that Chinese were frequently counted as “black.” Recall that from the discussion above, that in 1850 the only people eligible for either birthright or naturalized citizenship were whites.

Not only was the population heavily white, so was immigration (as reflected in Table 5.2). Between 1830 and 1930, 18,331,892 Northern and Western Europeans immigrated. For the same period, 13,944,454 Southern and Eastern Europeans came though 91% of that total came from 1891 to 1930. From 1820 to 1970 79% of all immigration was from Europe with the percentage not dropping below 60% until after 1951. (Kivisto, 1995: 84, 86). This European immigration was significant because while today people from these nations are generally considered “white,” at the time that was not necessarily the case. This was especially true for Southern and Eastern Europeans, but also for the second wave of Irish immigration which was heavily Catholic and poor (Ignatiev, 1995).

Table 5.1 Population by Race and Nativity from 1850-1990 in Percents

Source U.S. Census Bureau. Derived from Population Working Paper 29 Table 8.

Within this demographic context, we have the Quota Law of May 19, 1921. This law limited the number of immigrants into the country as three percent of each nationality’s foreign born population in 1910. If we look at Table 5.2 for 1910, this means that European immigrants would have a much higher quota because they represented 87.4% of the immigrants in 1910. Asia, specifically Chinese immigration was not subject to these quotas because the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was still in effect. The only other sizable group representation would have been from North America (primarily Canada).

Apparently the 1921 legislation was not having the desired affect, so in 1924 the law was changed to two percent of the foreign born population present in 1890. At that time the white foreign born population represented 16.6% of the white population and roughly 90% of immigrants, (Gibson and Lennon, 1999) and those whites were heavily of Northern and Western European origin. This remained in effect until 1929 when the two percent limit fixed on the 1920 percentages when 85.7% of the immigrants were from Europe. This quota remained essentially in affect until 1952 when the quota was revised to 1/6th of one percent of the 1920 foreign born population.

Table 5.2 Foreign Born Population 1850-1990 By Race and Region of Birth in Percents

              Source U.S. Census Bureau. Derived from Population Working Paper 29 Tables 2, 11 and 14.

As alluded to above, not all European immigrants were equal and a series of requirements were instituted to weed out the “undesirable.” Those immigrants on the exclusion list included: criminals and prostitutes (1875), persons likely to become a public charge (1882), those convicted of misdemeanors (1887), polygamists, and those whose passage was paid by others (1891), anarchists and others with undesirable opinions (1903); imbeciles, “feeble-minded,” and those with bad morals (1907), illiterate (1917), and any alien ineligible for citizenship (1924) [All data from the Immigration and Naturalization Legislation from the Statistic Yearbook]. While we are told that the ideal was “send us your poor, your tired, your hungry,” it is clear that is not who was wanted, and everybody need not apply.

So far we have two components working in conjunction – immigration and citizenship. Immigration “stacked the deck” with a particular “racial” population (“white”) to have numerical and cultural dominance, and citizenship laws created special privileges for that group to give them economic and political dominance. Those European populations that were originally considered “undesirable” because of wealth, position, religion or national politics were systematically disadvantaged both in terms of immigration and citizenship. Ultimately they were “assimilated” into the definition of whiteness, though not necessarily as equally “white.” Use of race as a distinguisher of opportunity and power focused on whites.

Anti-miscegenation

The concern of those with power at the time was not just to assure a “white” nation, but to assure the purity of the white race. While a variety of social and political mechanisms were used the anti-miscegenation laws were the most direct attempt at ensuring and protecting the integrity of white racial purity. Miscegenation is a term that was coined in 1863 and comes from the Latin miscre for mix and genus meaning race (Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus). Therefore miscegenation literally means “mixed race.” The anti-miscegenation legislation made intermarriage between whites and other races illegal.

Anti-miscegenation laws were in effect from the mid 1600's until the last was struck down as unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. State of Virginia). While the common perception is that anti-miscegenation laws applied solely to blacks, this is not the case. Who the laws were aimed at depended on who was seen as a dominant minority in the area. Therefore, slave states frequently specified blacks or slaves, while in California they specified Chinese and “Orientals.” Other laws were less specific and generally applied to non-whites. Even the laws that specified blacks were more general than we would make them today as other groups besides black Africans were included (specifically the Chinese), and most laws used “colored” a term that was applied to more than blacks.

Under the anti-miscegenation laws, white-non-white marriages were prohibited, or if they were recognized, the children of such marriages would be considered non-white, and in some states, illegitimate. Some states had penalties for these interracial marriage such as fines and imprisonment.

With the anti-miscegenation laws we see two processes working simultaneously. One process aimed at maintaining white racial purity, and one aimed at maintaining white social and economic power. There is no documentation that I can find of laws barring “non-whites” from marrying within their race or to someone of another non-white race. However, there were specific legal barriers to marriage and family for some groups (particularly slaves and Chinese workers). Part of the reason that anti-miscegenation legislation may not have extended beyond whites is that there were few rights for those who were not white. The determination that mixed race (white/non-white) were non-white, and hence for much of the time not eligible for citizenship or other privileges, removed them from social, economic and political competition with whites. It also assured white hegemony.

These three processes – immigration and citizenship and anti-miscegenation – were surrounded by beliefs about the “races.” In fact, we could say that the perceptions of race and white racial identity were at the core of the social structuring of race which these processes reflect. We see here an integration of three examples of social structuring, but these integrated not only with each other but with hundreds of other structural components. Further, this is not something that was left in the distant past. Even with the changes in immigration law, the removal of some barriers to citizenship, and the ending of anti-miscegenation legislation, the impacts remain today. We have arguments in California, for example, that children of illegal immigrants born in the United States should not have birthright citizenship. Or that English should be made the official language. Or that American Indian tribes should not have sovereignty. Or that civil rights and affirmative action are “special rights.” Both legally and culturally, the United States is still a nation that maintains and reinforces those racial concerns it has had from the beginning - namely that the white race have dominance within this domain.

Maintenance of the Race System

You should have a pretty good idea at this point to examine how the race-based system of stratification is maintained. Using the Maintenance of Stratification Systems model complete it based on race. I have included a table only for “whites” and “people of color” generically. I would encourage you to expand it to specific racialized groups.

There is an interesting dynamic occurring within the context of race in that there is clearly in-group processes at work. In other words, racial socialization and identity do not occur simply within the framework of the broader system, but within specific racialized groups. Therefore, there may be other rewards, penalties, and costs going on within a specific group. While the mainstream perception may be that all “people of color,” or all African American (for example) think the same way, the reality is that these are not homogenous populations socially or politically. So for an individual person of color their actions and behaviors “in the world” are going to be judged and sanctioned by different sources with different orientations.

Within this context, assume that there is a high degree of racial group identity and cohesion or a low to moderate degree of cohesion. The rules of boundary formation are going to apply here as they do within any societal context. In this instance the racial groups are enforcing a system through the utilization of rewards and penalties. Previously the assumption has been that the dominant social structure and forces are maintaining the boundaries and system. To utilize the model in this way,“rewards” would be those benefits, privileges, etc. that group members receive for maintaining the high identity group’s norms. Penalties would be for going against the high identity group’s norms. The comparison is to those people who are of the racial group, but do not have a high sense of group identity. They would most likely see some degree of compliance with the “white” system as more appropriate. Try playing with the model in this way and see what you come up with. Then compare it to the dominant - non-dominant group model you completed earlier.

Putting it Together

Race in and of itself is complex as your work with the models above has demonstrated. The forces at work occur both within the context of the dominant culture and social structure and within communities (racial and ethnic). Socialization into the race system as well as specific racial and identity socialization interact with, and in some cases determine social structure. Interaction with others reinforces patterns through our expectations of each other based upon the meaning of race. The patterns are also reinforced and extended through social structure and institutions which dramatically affect the reality of our lived conditions. Neither stands alone and there is constant reinforcement and reiteration (a feedback loop of sorts).

To add to the complexity, racial groups are not unified groups on the whole. There are variations and subtleties that occur within the group that also help shape individual (and sometimes collective) experiences. For example, the activism of some “whites” to protect their property interests has a residual benefit for most whites even if they did not personally advocate for the protection. Likewise the activism of millions of primarily African Americans gained Civil Rights that help to assure all of us equal protection, even though we may not personally have been involved. In these examples, surely not all “whites” had property to protect, or were supportive of such racial property right protection, and not all African Americans felt that the activism of the 1950s and 60s was wise or prudent.

Racial identity in an of itself is complex and frequently hard to isolate. “Whites,” on the whole, feel that they do not have a racial identity, but white identity has been called on and responded to over and over again historically and contemporarily. The current feeling of “whites” being disadvantaged is certainly symptomatic of white racial identity. On the other hand, “people of color” are all assumed to place preeminent importance on their racial identity, but this is not true.

As the examination of the role of whiteness has increased as part of the examination of both the construction of race, and of racial stratification, there has also been stated by some that there is a need for a positive white identity. In looking at the broad picture, whites already have a highly positive identity. This contradiction is also part of social construction. White racial identity has been linked to organized white supremacy. It is permeated through the mainstream culture that they are the only ones with a white identity. This serves nicely to maintain the fiction that whites do not receive racial socialization, and that whiteness as a racial category doesn’t “mean” anything. White identity does exist and is pervasive. Even a cursory look at historical or contemporary events can demonstrate its existence – and utilization.

Race, socially constructed and structurally entwined, is a part of virtually every interaction whether we are aware of it or not – it impacts and structures our lives, and often is as invisible as air. Our job is to make it visible so we know what we are dealing with. Understanding how race is constructed and perpetuated through our interactions and social systems allows us to know how to change it.

Looking Forward

Chapter Six examine social history and mythology in the United States – particularly in relationship to race. It covers historical events both familiar and unfamiliar and how they have shaped race in the United States. It is not intended as an exhaustive coverage of U.S. history. The discussion however, should give solid examples of many of the processes that have been discussed up to this point.

Suggested Readings and Resources

How Race is Lived in America. (1999-2000) New York Times special series.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/race/

Ignatiev, Noel. 1995. How the Irish Became White. Routledge: New York.

Immigration and Naturalization Services. http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/LegisHist/index.htm

Lopez, Ian F. Haney. 1996. White By Law. NYU Press: New York.

Key Concepts and Terms

anti-miscegenation

citizenship

ethnicity

immigration

privilege

race

racial identity

racial socialization

racialized ethnics