The Colors of Love: Multiracial People in Interracial Relationships 9781479802432

Table of contents :
Contents
Figures and Tables
Preface
Introduction: In/Visible Mixture
1 Making Multiracials Visible
2 Contested Choices
3 Ironic Interactions
4 Intimate Interrogations
5 Disappearing Differences
Conclusion: Where Do We Go from Here?
Acknowledgments
Appendix: Researcher Reflexivity
Notes
References
Index
About the Author

Citation preview

The Colors of Love

The Colors of Love Multiracial People in Interracial Relationships

Melinda A. Mills

New York Universit y Press New York

N EW YOR K U N I V ER SI T Y PR E S S New York www.nyupress.org © 2021 by New York University All rights reserved References to Internet websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the author nor New York University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared. Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data Names: Mills, Melinda, author. Title: The colors of love : multiracial people in interracial relationships / Melinda A. Mills. Description: New York : New York University Press, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021012486 | ISBN 9781479802401 (hardback ; alk. paper) | ISBN 9781479802418 (paperback ; alk. paper) | ISBN 9781479802425 (ebook) | ISBN 9781479802432 (ebook other) Subjects: LCSH: Interracial couples. | Interracial dating. | Racially mixed people. | Ethnicity. Classification: LCC HQ801.8 .M55 2021 | DDC 306.73089—­dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021012486 New York University Press books are printed on acid-­free paper, and their binding materials are chosen for strength and durability. We strive to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the greatest extent possible in publishing our books. Manufactured in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Also available as an ebook

To Omar, my best friend and forever love. To my mom and dad, for loving and dancing their way through life, and sharing the joy of their love with the world.

When I married Hewitt, I didn’t realize—­ among other things—­that I would become a member of that mewling and defensive group of people known as Interracial Couples. And who could fault them their mewling? Everywhere I went with Hewitt, strangers commented—­in subtle and not so subtle ways—­on the face of our unlikely union: me, a white woman, married to him, a black man. . . . The only problem, of course, was that it wasn’t true. Any of it. —­Danzy Senna, “What’s the Matter with Helga and Dave?,” in You Are Free (2011, 179–­80)

Contents

Figures and Tables xi Preface xiii Introduction: In/Visible Mixture

1

1. Making Multiracials Visible

31

2. Contested Choices

70

3. Ironic Interactions

104

4. Intimate Interrogations

138

5. Disappearing Differences

172

Conclusion: Where Do We Go from Here?

211

Acknowledgments 219 Appendix: Researcher Reflexivity 223 Notes 231 References 263 Index 281 About the Author 287

ix

Figures and Tables

Figure I.1. Mapping (In/visible) Mixture at the Individual and Relational Levels

11

Figure 1.1. Shared or Overlapping (White) Racial Group Membership

39

Figure 1.2. Statistics on Black–­White Interracial Marriage Prior to 2000

44

Table 1.1. Interracial Marriage in the United States, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990

45

Table 1.2. Interracial Marriage in the United States, 2000, 2010, and 2012–­16

46

Figure 1.3. Racial Mixture Matrices

53

Figure 1.4. Thinning Multiracial and/or Asian Identity, Thickening White Identity

55

Figure 1.5. Thinning White Identity, Thickening Asian Identity

55

Figure 1.6. Thinning Singular or Border Identities, Thickening Multiracial Identity (“Becoming Multiracial” Model)

55

Figure 1.7. Racial Identity Options Matrix

57

Figure 1.8. “More Than Multiracial” Model

58

Figure 1.9. Honorary Memberships

59

Figure 1.10 Same Difference Depicted, Invisibly Interracial Relationship 62 Figure 1.11. Similar Parentage, Different Preferred Racial Identities

63

Figure 1.12. Incongruity amid Ambiguity

63 xi

xii | Figures and Tables

Figure 1.13. Similar Differences in Appearance and Identity

64

Table 1.3. Illustration of Changes in Formal Racial Identification (1990–­2010)

66

Figure 1.14. Trends in Multiracial Individual and Relational Identity

68

Figure 3.1. Moving Away from “Multiracial,” “Becoming” Another Race (or Some Other Race/s)

112

Figure 3.2. Building a Multiracial Consciousness, Becoming Multiracial (or “Becoming” Some Other Race/s)

115

Figure 4.1. “His” View of Individual Racial Identity (His: White; Hers: White) and Relational Race (Implicitly White Couple)

153

Figure 4.2. “His” View of Individual Racial Identity and Relational Race as Interracial (a Situationally Interracial Relationship)

153

Figure 4.3. “His” View of Individual Racial Identity (His: White; Hers: Asian) and Relational Race (Interracial Couple)

153

Figure 4.4. “His” View of Individual Racial Identity (His: White; Hers: Mostly White, Sometimes Asian) and Relational Race (White Couple; Racially Mixed Couple)

153

Preface

Long before I formally studied sociology, I learned how to navigate conversations on race from a variety of perspectives. Growing up in my birthplace of St. Thomas, a US territory and the most populated of the three Virgin Islands, also involved growing up in a multicultural community and interracial family. Growing up multiracial meant I spent a lot of time searching for the words to accurately describe these experiences. It was not until I left home for college that I would begin cultivating my own ability to navigate conversations about race. In fact, I remember feeling like I needed to have more of these conversations with a wider range of people and in more spaces and settings to explore these topics more deeply and meaningfully. At first, I ran away from the difficulty, literally exiting dorm rooms to escape the intensity of these conversations. The expressivity of people’s emotions and the depth of people’s experiences overwhelmed me. I wondered, “Why does race make people’s affect flare?” Why did it prove so divisive in this new landscape, in the very academic spaces studied for this reason and discussed in Beverly Tatum’s book Why Are All of the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? While I initially walked away from many of these conversations, I returned to them in ways that felt more comfortable to me, with my friends, in our dorm rooms, away from the performative aspects of the classroom, in a more intimate space where I could ask questions and dive deep in this difficult dialog in a supportive space. In college, and again in graduate school, I increasingly engaged in these conversations, determined to understand how race operates in the United States and what was unique to the US ways of “seeing race in modern America.”1 Throughout my undergraduate career, I often talked about race and race relations in the United States with my close friends. We began taking our studies, our lives, and ourselves more seriously, and we carved out the time, space, and energy to discuss what mattered most to us at the moment. xiii

xiv | Preface

It was in this moment that I began to have a more serious dialog about the politics of race as a factor shaping romantic relationships. And now, looking back, I can see that it was not until graduate school that I began to see how the “personal is political,”2 how these questions I had and held onto would eventually inform and chart my academic journey. But long before I would seriously consider conducting sociological research on romantic relationships (or even knew how to embark on such an endeavor—­the conducting of qualitative interviews, the gathering of empirical evidence, the analysis of data, the sharing of findings), I would talk through my questions in search of answers. I recall several conversations with my then boyfriend, including one in particular, that, in retrospect, gave me the courage and confidence to take my experiences more seriously and see the sociological value in my story and that of other racially mixed people. We had to have been sitting in my apartment in New York City, where we spent so many hours together talking and laughing about whatever interesting things grabbed our attention. I remember sharing with him some variation of the following details of a (then) recent experience I had in my Race, Racism, and Mental Health class with Dr. Carter at Teachers College, Columbia University. A young brown-­skinned woman, a researcher, came to visit Dr. Carter’s class, and I could not help but think it was partially because of some of my questions that challenged that professor’s thinking about multiracial identity that she was invited there in the first place. A year earlier, I had first enrolled in the class, thinking it would be “interesting,” important information for me to finally learn more fully, but I missed the memo about the difficulty of the class. We were assigned discussion groups that we were expected to attend weekly as a part of the course requirements. When no “multiracial” group was named, I reluctantly but bravely asked what group someone like me, or any other multiracial-­ identified students, would join. Dr. Carter suggested that I choose the group that I most identify with, and that response both surprised and anguished me at the time. But it also unveiled a previously unidentified passion and helped clarify an academic career path that I would ultimately take. In my recollection, she didn’t give a formal guest lecture but instead stood gracefully at the front of the classroom, sharing both anecdotal

Preface | xv

and empirical evidence about interracial relationships. She recalled an experience that she had as a young girl that resonated with me, when she liked a boy who refused to like her (or to publicly admit that he liked her) because of their visibly different skin colors. She noted that the boy probably did not realize that she was mixed, or multiracial, and that she felt at least somewhat similar to him and his whiteness. But he saw their physical differences and registered them as a distance, reason enough to remain apart rather than recognize any similarities or discover commonalities amid any actual differences. He rejected her, having never given her much consideration based on their phenotypical differences. That is, he rejected her primarily on the basis of a perception, his perception but a misperception all the same. By making a synecdochical move, relying on the part to define the whole, he ended up making no move at all. In other words, he saw her brown skin and presumed that she was “just black,” or what one of my participants calls “all-­the-­way-­black,” rather than “more than black,”3 or what I call “black and some other race(s).” Marcia Alesan Dawkins discusses this phenomenon of synecdoche; she argues that it works differently, depending on people’s racial parentage and their phenotype, or physical appearance, and others’ perception of that heritage, of that physicality.4 People who look white may also be partly black, while the “one drop” rule of hypodescent mandates that people who look black are black even if they are partly white.5 Based on thec faulty racial logic that prevails in contemporary society, much as it has in the past, the young white man, in his boyhood, presumably believed himself to be white6 and the researcher, in her girlhood, as black. The researcher continued to describe some of the difficulties she encountered, not just in the racial rejection and misrecognition she felt in that moment (and others that preceded/followed it) but also in having a white mother who did not possess what feminist sociologists call “racial literacy.”7 From the sounds of it, the researcher’s mother was not fully prepared to understand her brown daughter’s racial reality; consistent with much of the literature at the time, this (white) parent was ill equipped with tools to help her young (brown) daughter navigate the often-­rocky racial waters of social life here in the United States.8 The researcher emphasized how little her mother comprehended the racialized aspects of the rejection, interpreting it instead solely through the

xvi | Preface

lens of gender, where a boy had rejected or denied a girl, a textbook case of unrequited love, if you will. The researcher suggested that instead, she viewed the boy’s disinterest and denial of her through an intersectional lens, one that allowed her to see that her romantic interests (first in boys, in her girlhood, and later in men, in her adulthood) would not necessarily be reciprocated or even well received because of a persistent racial divide and racial rules that disallowed such a thing. Society-­wide, this racial divide dictates who should be seen as desirable and undesirable, thereby influencing, for many people, who they, in turn, see as desirable and thus whom they desire (or pursue). Despite a prolific circulation of such messages, people refute being persuaded by dominant discourses that determine or shape romantic partner choices. Instead, they view their decisions as guided mostly or exclusively by individual preference, a simple matter of taste, a personal choice. The researcher said that she always wondered, if she were a (more visibly) white girl, would the boy have been more interested in her. A scan of the literature suggests a speculative but affirmative answer. Ample scholarship points to white women as not only the ideal choice for men across all races but an ideal beauty well positioned in line, or a beauty queue, to be considered the most desirable; this research also indicates that lighter-­skinned women have access to resources and advantages that darker-­skinned women cannot similarly access.9 “The standards of beauty in our society . . . are believed to be based on physical appearances more associated with white females. Given the strong historical vestiges of racism in our society, it is questionable if we will be able to erase completely the feelings of difference between blacks and whites.”10 Moore further contends, “African American women felt very distant from white males and did not trust their motives although they expressed an openness to marry a white male should one be found that was culturally compatible.”11 Because black has historically operated as an umbrella term for racial mixture as well, one can extend Moore’s point to see that, perhaps more generally speaking, women of color maintain feelings of ambivalence and apprehension about partnering with white men for fear of cultural or social incompatibility. Issues of desirability and respectability get wrapped up in concerns about compatibility, particularly if members of certain racial groups are always already cast as lacking in beauty, intelligence, even humanity.

Preface | xvii

As I sat in the class, I remember feeling a refreshing sense of recognition, a resonance in the researcher’s story, although the details differed. I had never discussed topics like race and romantic relationships in a contemporary context extensively or frequently in class. As an undergraduate student at Wesleyan, I recalled, the topic certainly surfaced, but people often skirted around the issue, opting into a colorblind narrative12 (“Oh, I never notice race.” Or “Race does not matter to me; who people are does.”) or opting out of the conversation altogether through colormuteness by maintaining silence or a reticence by simply not talking about race.13 So it must have been that I was struck by the ease with which the young woman came to tell her story. I mean she was obviously pained by her experience, the rejection an inevitable sting and interruption to the innocence of her youth. But she also conveyed a sense of importance about the topic, and she was asking a more relatable question: If she were more visibly, recognizably mixed (or, conversely, more racially similar to her young crush), would he have had less pause or still have proceeded with caution, perhaps as a reflection of his personality and not an in/action informed by racial dynamics and ideologies? I must have taken all her rhetorical questions and tucked them away for later to discuss with my boyfriend. At the time, we were so young, I was twenty-­one, he twenty. I was still solidifying my racial sense of self and doing so in a new social landscape far away from the comforts and familiarity of home, in a place where strangers made quite a fuss about my racial ambiguity. Perpetually facing the “What are you?” question prompted me to wonder how my romantic partner might regard my racial identity. Instead of continuing to wonder and worry about his answers to my questions, I simply started asking questions: Are we a couple? And, if so, “are we an interracial couple?” Since I was in love with this man, I was hoping he would offer the right answer, even though I was not certain one singular “right answer” existed. I had not really explored the matter before, but suddenly, it took on a different significance. As was customary of him in our relationship, he was good at anticipating my needs often before I could identify them for myself. (In other words, he knew I needed to hear a particular answer but may not have been sure of the best or right answer at the time.) Perhaps he sensed the import of his response, that the question

xviii | Preface

was something of a litmus test, some newfangled criteria, or “how to date a brown (mixed) girl.”14 We talked through his tentative thoughts about my question. “Are we an interracial couple?” he wondered aloud, repeating the question (speculatively, to buy himself some time to find his own words while searching for clues in my face to guide his answer). Except that my face, my multiracial and racially ambiguous face, was perhaps partially a reason the question proved so problematic, so difficult to decipher, to decide on an appropriate answer. What was the appropriate answer, anyway? It was not until that moment that I realized the two of us might have completely different views of the same relationship, our own relationship, and that those contrasting views might seem inconsistent or incompatible, but that did not make them mutually exclusive, impossible, or uneasy to accommodate. That is, he could have maintained a view of “us” that differed from my view, and both views could, in fact, be correct or the truth as we respectively saw or felt it. Looking back, it must have felt like I was setting some sort of trap, but that was not at all my intention. I simply wanted to know if he saw me as I saw myself, if those views were congruent. Having a partner whose views aligned with mine would have signaled that we saw each other as respectively preferred and that these views could be figured into any calculations of our relationship to solve the puzzle of whether ours was an interracial one. How might he factor in this racial ambiguity into his view of us as a couple, and what would I do if his view differed from mine? Perhaps a part of me was subtly preparing him for the likelihood that he might vicariously have the “What are you?” experiences or bear witness to them. The next time I asked my then boyfriend that loaded question, it took on a different inflection: “Are we an interracial couple?” I wanted to know how my boyfriend might handle the frequency of others’ inquiries and other common external reactions to my racial multiplicity; the aforementioned ambiguity of my appearance provoked abundant attention in public, the very kind of attention I then abhorred but have since grown accustomed to. I wanted to know if my boyfriend could keep the composition of our relationship intact by valuing the sum of our parts and validating our respective preferred racial identities, to hold space for that rather than risk inadvertently or intentionally flattening out any (of

Preface | xix

his or my) complexity into simplicity, into a racial singularity. I wanted to know if, with him claiming a black identity and me, a multiracial one, if my mixture would be enveloped or disappeared into blackness, as has historically been the case.15 In other words, would my racial mixture blend into our shared blackness, or would my ambiguity be amplified in that relational context? While his exact response to my question unfortunately eludes me at the moment, I do vaguely remember him turning the question back to me. In asking me to share my preferred racial identity, he first wanted clarification as a way to then offer affirmation, as is characteristic of him. In opening that inquiry, we mutually arrived at better understandings of ourselves, of one another, of us. Ultimately, he assured me that, while he understood where I was coming from, he did not really think it made a difference either way, because he thought I was beautiful and loved me all the same. And what was the point of arguing with that, I thought. His reassurance provided the space for me to be multiracial and black without feeling pressed to choose. But my curiosity lingered, as I continued thinking about individual and relational racial identity, about how race would shape my life, and his, independently and collectively. Since so many people had by then posed the “What are you?” question to me individually, I continued wondering, “How did other people see us together?” Did my boyfriend help racially decode me to others, such that he offered clues about my racial identity through his own appearance? Did he translate my racial ambiguity or clarify it by more solidly anchoring it in blackness? Why did I have this need to know if we, ourselves, considered ours an interracial relationship? Was determining if we were an interracial couple so important to me because I had grown up in an interracial family and, in becoming accustomed to and appreciative of racial diversity, I wanted to reproduce race in that way? I would continue exploring these questions casually and then eventually more formally, upon entry into the PhD program in sociology at Georgia State University. I knew I needed to further my education, personally and academically, to more fully understand many of the nuances of how race is lived in America. The questions that I posed to my partner were one small but significant part of that process. As much as I was curious about my partner’s perceptions of us, I was just as curious about other people’s responses to these questions.

xx | Preface

This curiosity guided me to, and through, graduate school, where I conducted research with racially mixed people. In my research, I was able to ask all these questions that had nagged me for years: How did other people in interracial relationships that involved at least one multiracial person characterize their respective relationship? Did they see it as an interracial one, and how relevant or central was that detail? In what instances was such a detail primary, and when was it secondary or tertiary? Did the racial dynamic in which two people experience a relationship ever shift, much like identities themselves often shift, especially given that they are relational, and that identities are fluid and can shift as well? How does this dynamic shift within romantic relationships, and is it contingent on the preferred identities of the individuals involved or, perhaps more so, on the way others perceive them? What would it mean if the identities of individuals in interracial relationships shift, as reflective of the quality of relational identities, showing that people do have the capacity to be shape-­shifted in their intimate lives, such that they do not necessarily abandon their own racial identities, but that they expand to take on some of the qualities of an intimate romantic partner? Scholars argue that individuals in interracial relationships are, in fact, impacted by their respective partner(s). I wanted to further understand how and why this occurred among multiracials. Is it possible that individuals of any race(s) can develop new ways of seeing the world as a result of interracial dating or of being in a relationship with people who are members of different racial groups? What might people of color learn as they enter interracial relationships with white partners or with nonwhite partners, as is increasingly the case?16 What might anyone learn from the presence of more interracial relationships inhabiting the national and social landscape, as is predicted to occur given the current demographic trends? What could people learn if these interracial relationships increase while becoming more visible? What if they increase without becoming more visible? This book project tackles these questions, as I explore what it means to be multiracial in interracial relationships. I consider what it means to be in/visibly mixed, individually and relationally, such that some people’s multiracial identity remains veiled, largely undetected by others, while others appear clearly mixed. The degree of in/visibility consequently makes some romantic relationships (involving at least one racially mixed

Preface | xxi

person) recognizably mixed or invisibly so. Although this book begins with a personal anecdote as entrée into the topic of race mixing, of “racing romance,”17 what follows focuses more fully on the sixty individuals I conducted qualitative interviews with over the course of two years. My intention is to share the insight I gained in conversing with people of various racial combinations to see similarities where mostly differences might have been more obvious or to see differences amid any similarities. The stories I share in these pages build on, yet depart from, those told in my first book, The Borders of Race, and bring to life the complexities of being multiracial in American and in romantic relationships in contemporary society.

Introduction In/Visible Mixture

Most people take as a starting point that interracial relationships involve individuals of different and singular races, with each individual imagined to belong to one racial group. In this way, people connect with one another from across the color line to couple and form an intimate relationship or partnership. Seldom do individuals who are multiracial, or two or more races, come to mind. Less frequently still do people consider how similarities and differences—­in skin color, preferred racial identities, and racial composition or ancestry—­impact how multiracial people experience their romantic relationships. The same is true in sociological research on interracial relationships, where a “monoracist” paradigm makes monoracial people the default reference point. In a rare critique of this perspective, sociologist Miri Song points out how a monoracist approach not only limits our understanding of what it means to be in an interracial relationship but also how race is and can be defined: “Because multiracial individuals are by definition ‘mixed,’ their very mixed-­ness illustrates the limited utility of theorizing (about intermarriage and integration) based upon monoracial groups.”1 To more fully understand contemporary ethnoracial boundaries and social divisions, Song encourages examination of the intimate and romantic partner choices of multiracials, the second generation of interracial relationships. Doing so raises the following questions: “Are people with some shared or overlapping racial group membership or the same preferred racial identities despite known differences in racial background and heritage experiencing ‘interracial’ intimacy?” and “What makes a relationship ‘interracial’ for multiracial people?” Understanding how multiracial people select as romantic partners, and the extent to which race and racism influence their choices in the dating market and their

1

2 | Introduction

experiences in romantic relationships remains important, as a growing number of Americans identify as part of the “two or more races” population. By placing multiracial people at the center of this project, I explore these questions as a way to make visible the experiences of my respondents. They are among the more than nine million people who claim and/or acknowledge a racially mixed identity, parentage, or heritage that often disappears in society and in discussions about interracial relationships.2 I challenge the tendency toward infantilizing multiracials, or seeing them as perpetual children.3 Seeing multiracial people as adults who enter their own intimate romantic relationships recognizes their agency in actively shaping their “romantic careers.”4 As an attempt to address this lacuna in the literature, I consider the racial identity and partner choices multiracials make in contemporary society. This connects to, yet contrasts with, research that examines how others respond to multiracial people in the dating market.5 Alongside increased efforts to understand “who is multiracial”6 is an attendant interest in understanding the romantic partner choices of multiracials. Studying the racial locations of multiracials, as well as the (real and imagined) social distance between them and others of different racial groups, provide insights into these experiences.7 In studying the romantic careers of multiracials, researchers have found that multiracial people are generally “more likely to seek potential partners outside of their same racial/ethnic identity.”8 More specifically, multiracial people express a strong preference for white romantic partners and a weak preference or aversion to Asian and black people; “white biracial individuals (e.g., Asian-­white, Hispanic-­white, and other-­white) are less likely to indicate a preference to date outside of their racial/ethnic category compared to the biracial reference category.”9 These findings add nuance to the broader observation about multiracial people’s willingness to cross color lines; they complicate how multiracial people of different racial combinations decide to cross lines (including which ones they want to cross or not). This book moves beyond singular races as the default, to make multiracials visible in society, since much of the way we see multiracial people in interracial relationships is not seeing. Seeing multiracial people in interracial relationships also requires registering a messy reality of

Introduction | 3

(chosen and coerced) race mixing throughout history. I also show how (unintentionally) subversive some multiracial people are, appearing to be in what others decidedly insist on seeing as interracial intimacy or partnerships but that multiracial people themselves often see otherwise. I illustrate how multiracial people attempt to make visible their racial mixture while contesting, challenging, or even expanding images of “interracial relationships.” For the individuals I interviewed, sharing information with others about how they see themselves racially and in their romantic relationships also worked to close the gap between their preferred racial identity, their appearance, and others’ (mis)perceptions of them at individual and relational levels. The information they shared also helped me update my own ways of seeing multiracial identity as sometimes shifting, in/visible mixture.10 Building on my previous work, in this book, I examine “shifting mixture” in relation to “invisible mixture”11 to consider how having potentially flexible and fluid racial identities influence people’s partner choices and their experiences in romantic relationships. Invisible mixture can exist at various levels of identity (individual, familial, relational, communal) such that a multiracial person may not look “clearly mixed” (individual), may come from a family where racial borders blended (familial), may partner with someone who looks phenotypically similar (relational), and may belong to a community of like others (communal). At every level, invisible mixture may exist but remain invisible. Racial mixture remains uncommon at communal levels (considering the patterns of hyper-­segregation evident in the national landscape). Although we live in a moment where racial mixture is no longer illegal on marital or familial levels, such was not always the case throughout history.

On Life beyond Loving In 1967, the Supreme Court determined the ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. The Lovings provoked public attention for crossing color lines at a time when interracial marriage was banned in their home state of Virginia, their experience highlighting the costs of crossing racial borders. Before the Loving v. the Commonwealth of Virginia case was decided, people living on the fault lines of race often tried

4 | Introduction

their best to safely maneuver around society. They learned to carefully navigate the color line, respecting racial borders and dominant racial ideologies that supported the social order. Doing so worked to minimize the regulation of race and romance interracial couples faced and maintain the socially constructed distinctions and imagined differences between racial groups. In Making Multiracials, a book published forty years after the Loving decision, sociologist Kimberly DaCosta observes that (prior to the ban being lifted) “[a]nti-­miscegenation laws codified cultural notions about the undesirability of interracial kinship.”12 National surveys support this point. Based on Gallup poll data, in the decade before the Loving decision (1958 to be exact), the majority of whites (98 percent) disapproved of interracial marriages between blacks and whites; by 1972, five years post-­Loving, an increasing but still small number of whites (27 percent) indicated their approval of interracial marriage.13 While support for interracial relationships has not always been so robust, a shift in attitude continues: Over time, black and white attitudes toward intermarriage have converged, and acceptance of intermarriage overall has increased. In 1997, the year the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] adopted its policy of enumerating multiple race responses, 67 percent of whites and 83 percent of blacks approved of intermarriage. By 2003, 73 percent of Americans said they approved of intermarriage (Gallup Organization 2004).14

Others agree. In the post–­civil rights era and post-­Loving moment, whites’ approval of intermarriage increased at a “staggering” pace.15 This approval continues to grow: According to a 2013 Gallup Poll, 84% of whites surveyed approved of Black-­White marriages, while 96% of blacks surveyed approve of Black-­ White marriages, which stands in contrast to the 1969 figures, when 56% of Blacks and only 17% of Whites approved of Black-­White marriages.16

Following the Loving legislation, resistance to interracial marriage and relationships persisted then dissipated. As interracial intimacy became more common, Americans grew more familiar with and

Introduction | 5

accommodating of interracial relationships, perhaps seeing the value in such family diversity in society.17 As discussed earlier, a range of responses to interracial intimacy and multiracial families is evident and move beyond traditional explicit opposition into more supportive terrain or some combination thereof (i.e., supportive opposition).18 That is, interracial couples are not necessarily met with explicit hostility or aggression but ambivalence, even indifference. Amid the continuing public approval of interracial intimacy, some potential discrepancies emerge(d). That is, people’s “talk” did (and does) not always align with their “walk.” Some inconsistencies exist among people’s behavior, beliefs, and ideology within and across racial groups. Consider any pressures that might produce more socially desirable results among those surveyed. For any respondents who are ambivalent or some combination of supportive and opposed to interracial marriages, they may be inclined to indicate support in a survey.19 What may complicate results in attitudinal surveys relates to the interracial marriages in question. Particular racial combinations of couples may garner more support than others. However, most surveys choose to focus on black–­white marriages given that this pairing seems the most polarized, provocative, and problematic in the view of many Americans in both historical and contemporary society. As a result, we primarily understand support and/or opposition to interracial marriage through a dichotomous view of race. Racial attitudes have primarily and historically been measured with black and white interracial couples as the reference point among white and black people.20 Paradoxically, measuring racial attitudes based on this pairing might also work to maintain said polarity; focusing on white and black people ignores the racial attitudes about interracial intimacy of other groups. Breaking from a black/white binary would enrich our collective understanding of interracial couples of various racial combinations; it would also diversify the pool of people sampled to complete such surveys. Researchers accomplish this to the degree that they include Hispanics in their survey (nevertheless neglecting to include Asians, Native Americans, and/or multiracials): “Whites (12%) and blacks (9%) are more likely than Hispanics (3%) to say they would oppose a close relative marrying someone of a different race or ethnicity”; observable gender differences exist as well: “Men are somewhat more likely than

6 | Introduction

women to [oppose a close relative marrying interracially] as well (13% vs. 8%).”21 These data reflect a declining regulation of race and romance, as evidenced through increasing support of interracial marriages and relationships. These patterns possibly speak to the socially desirable responses people provide, which pressures them into publicly indicating such support for race mixing. The relatively low numbers of people who enter and maintain interracial relationships, as well as the growing but low numbers of people who formally claim two or more races, hints at a residual racial regulation that remains, even as it discursively changes shape or form. The various reactions that members of interracial couples and families experience, individually and collectively, remain largely contingent on in/visibility, even hypervisibility. Generally, interracial couples and families still endure sustained surveillance,22 viewed as objects “to be gazed at. . . . Such families are highly visible because they violate racial norms of what families are supposed to look like. Their visibility today is due to the fact that attempts to make them invisible in the past were so successful. The category, ‘multiracial family’ is a recent creation.”23 As such, interracial families risk becoming racial spectacles or spectacular bodies,24 no longer “shadow bodies.”25 People in interracial relationships must manage the curious place between violating normative expectations and bearing the burden of solving the problem of racism.26 They are charged with bridging racial divides, even as they break with normative tradition. Successful efforts to eradicate or mask racial difference within families partially explain why racial resemblance among family members remains seemingly requisite. Any visible racial differences among members of interracial couples and families, or the absence of this requisite racial resemblance, often provoke rejection, disapproval, or hostility from opponents. Interracial families elicit discipline and punishment as their togetherness may not be seen as progressive but, rather, as transgressive. The disciplining of desire socially encourages, although no longer legally mandates, people to “stick to their own kind.” The punishment for racial transgressions included social and geographical marginality, severe bodily harm, and even death in the most extreme cases.27 “In legally and socially prohibiting interracial families, the normative ‘good’ family was constructed as monoracial. As a result,

Introduction | 7

interracial families have not enjoyed that symbolic profit of normality because of their racial mixedness.”28 Visible differences among members of interracial families may make them vulnerable to the threat of punishment for breaching the social contract of racial homogamy. Thus, visibility management becomes a strategic response to this real or imagined threat.29

Managing In/visible Difference The social expectation of racial homogamy makes marrying someone racially similar the social norm. Not doing so compromises that social contract and, more important (some would argue), contaminates race (and racial purity) through race mixing. Arguably, the policing of interracial intimacy involves any visible difference between members of such a couple. What about people in interracial relationships who do not appear visibly different from their partners? Do they face the same sort of racial regulation, their invisible differences offering up partial protection from the policing, scrutiny, and surveillance that visibly different-­looking couples encountered and endured? Do invisible differences allow individuals with “similar differences” to remain relatively unscathed by the racial rules of the day? The very term similar differences suggests that two people in an interracial relationship can, at times, share similar (1) preferred racial identity, (2) racial heritage, and/or (3) physical or phenotypic appearances while, at other times, also (1) choosing different racial identities, (2) claiming or highlighting different aspects of their heritage, and (3) locating themselves in different racial groups. When two people with the same racial identity do not phenotypically approximate each other, they may encounter opposition or resistance to their romance because they appear to be different (even as they claim similar racial options and identities for themselves). Often, couples that appear visibly, detectably different must manage any interpersonal tension. Their legible racial difference potentially heightens the attention and reactions they receive. For many members of interracial families and relationships, similar differences may hide in plain sight, concealed by racial resemblances, remaining largely undetectable or unintelligible to others, even as it is known (or knowable)

8 | Introduction

to individuals within families, communities, and societies. People may choose to acknowledge the “similar differences” between said family members. Alternately, they may flatten out some of these differences in an effort to make various family members seem more similar than different.

On Being Clearly and/or Invisibly Mixed First, let’s consider the marriage of former royals: Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle. Markle’s multiracial identity has become as central a topic as her marriage to Prince Harry, her pregnancy, and the consequent birth of their son, Archie. Given her appearance and public information (which includes her acknowledgment of her black mother and white father), Markle is arguably read as “clearly mixed,” while the couple’s son is likely considered “invisibly mixed.”30 The latter position is a precarious one, likely most contentious to those fans who claim to see evidence of his blackness (these stances promulgate essentialist notions of race). Despite Markle’s ostensible appearance as “clearly mixed” and her son’s more “invisibly mixed” appearance, all three (mother, father, and child) may have more in common than meets the eye (including whiteness and blackness). The latter point is one that anthropologists make, arguing that more variation exists within socially constructed racial groups than between them. Yet any in/visible differences in individuals, among romantic relationship partners, and within families, still draw attention. As a society, people remain curious about, yet skeptical of, racial mixture as this mixture appears and disappears at individual, relational, familial, communal, and national levels. Racial mixture curiously hides itself well in plain sight and materializes out of society’s desire to create and police racial borders. The perception of racially mixed people as belonging to only one racial group (a separate “multiracial” group or “one and only one race” versus two or more racial groups) impacts and shapes their social interactions. For example, if a multiracial person is perceived as white—­when, let’s say, they identify as multiracial (white and Asian), they may feel that their preferred racial identity—­as multiracial—­is negated or invalidated. They may feel the sting of their invisible mixture, as a part of their heritage goes

Introduction | 9

unacknowledged. Because “invisible mixture” largely remains illegible or imperceptible to others, they may not even know that they are invalidating the preferred (multiracial) identity of the individual in question. When romantic relationships are viewed through a racial mocularity that only accommodates singular race identities at individual and relational levels, multiracial people likely feel some invalidation. They can experience this invalidation in terms of their preferred individual identity (if they claim multiple racial group memberships), as well as their relational identity (when others see their partnership as racially homogeneous or similar rather than heterogeneous or dissimilar). In particular, this view denies multiracial people the freedom to choose their preferred racial identity and/or feel affirmed in their choices. Typically, multiracial people end up negotiating their own invisible mixture when any incongruity exists between their physical appearance, their preferred racial identity, and others’ perception of them.31 Invisibly mixed people, paradoxically, may also be recognized as “clearly mixed”32 or “clearly invisible.”33 They may appear to belong to one racial group (or groups) and may likely encounter contestations or questions if they choose a preferred racial identity that is incongruous with their physical appearance.34 “Invisible mixture” emerges as an important conceptual tool for understanding the negotiations and navigations that multiracial people make in their everyday lives. In this book, I am particularly interested in questions related to how multiracial people navigate racial borders as members of “interracial” families and relationships. I place “interracial” in quotations here to capture the contestable quality of both racial identity and romantic relationships, and the regulation of the two, as they become entangled when multiracial people choose their preferred racial identity and/or their romantic partner(s). This book advances readers toward the goal of making mixture clearer, more visible, and more legible, at least in part, by drawing attention to and discussing the experiences of multiracial people in interracial relationships. It grapples with the question of who counts as multiracial, and what counts as an interracial relationship. This work reflects efforts at recognizing multiracial people in families and society in ways intended to enhance their visibility and account for their presence in a more meaningful manner.

10 | Introduction

Here, for similar reasons, I also put terms like clearly mixed, in/visibly mixed, and even multiracial in quotes in places to designate the debatable and indeterminate quality of racial mixture and race mixing. In doing so, I intentionally draw attention to the fluidity of racial identity to recognize that romantic relationships involving at least one multiracial person are not immediately or always already understood or experienced as “interracial.” Let’s turn to another celebrity case for further discussion and illustration of these terms. Consider the Currys—­professional basketball star Steph Curry (who plays for the Golden State Warriors); his wife, Ayesha, a chef, restaurateur, and television personality; and their three children. As the couple’s career success continued to accelerate, so, too, did curiosity about their racial identity and family background. Online, people often asked iterations of the “What are you?” question about the Currys. Becoming household names prompted the public’s interest in them and their respective families of origin. Their physical features (including skin, hair, and eye color and hair texture) gestured at generational mixture within their family. (Because of their phenotype, or physical appearance, the Currys are often viewed as having “embodied capital.”35) Ayesha Curry is reportedly of Jamaican Chinese, African American, and Polish descent, while Steph Curry is of African American Creole and Haitian descent. It is likely that the couple’s parents all identified as black, given the one-­drop rule that once prevailed. Because of their appearance, Steph and Ayesha themselves have been viewed in a plethora of ways. When beginning to type the question, “Is Ayesha Curry (multiracial?)” I observed that the question autocompletes instead with white, then Asian. Notably, one must type in multiracial and/or black, since neither option pops into the autocomplete window. This reveals not only the popularity of searches but also perceptions among the public. Given Ayesha Curry’s descent, people are seeing hints of her heritage, her in/visible mixture. While many viewers arguably see Steph Curry as “clearly mixed,” could they say with much certainty that he racially identifies as multiracial? Would his wife make any claims to a multiracial identity herself? What about their three young children? These questions pick up the possibility that the Curry family (and of any family, really) can have the following racial identities: (1) individual, (2) relational, and (3) familial. These

Introduction | 11

identities can get embedded in spaces with communal identities as well (such as neighborhoods). Questions about how any and/or all members of the Curry family racially identify highlight variations (or similarities) that may exist between its members. Are all the Currys similarly or differently mixed? The possibility exists that they claim “multiracial” as a preferred racial identity (on individual, relational, and familial levels) or that they opt for different racial identities at different times, thereby maintaining the appearance of similarities while claiming these differences in racial identity. As illustrated in figure I.1, the individual identities (each person) combine into relational ones (as a couple). This visualization can extend into broader familial configurations, as well as communal ones. The Curry children’s racial identities are likely read against and in relation to their parents (or others). The reality exists that the Curry Mixed + Mixed =

a. Mixed

+ Mono/ Mixed + Mono =

a. Homogeneous

b. Homogeneous

=

b. Mixed

× Mono/ Mono/ Mixed + Mixed

a. Homogeneous

× Mono/ Mixed + Mixed

a. Mixed

×+

b. Homogeneous

c. Mixed

=

c. Mixed

+

b. Homogeneous

+

Figure I.1. Mapping (in/visible) Mixture at the Individual and Relational Levels

=

12 | Introduction

kids are multiracial and/or more. Is theirs an interracial family because of Steph’s multiracial identity and/or theirs (his wife and children)? This may be a question answerable with “all of the above,” “some of the above,” or “none of the above” scenario, whereby all, some, or no members of the family identify as “multiracial.” If any and/or all of them experience shifting mixture, they may see themselves as all, some, or none of the above in terms of racial mixture. They may understand their racial selves individually and relationally within their “multiracial” “interracial” family. As a family, the Currys may prefer to be considered “just black,” or they may individually and collectively identify as “more than black.”36 What if some insist on their blackness while others staunchly oppose seeing them as such? What if some insist on their racial mixture, refusing to see them in any racially singular way? Multiple ways of seeing a racially mixed family like the Currys exist. Mutually inclusive views of families remain possible or coexist; within the contemporary racial hierarchy in this society, they necessarily compete and conflict with one another. Interest in the Curry family, and their immediate or even extended family, reflect a national or collective curiosity and anxiety about racial multiplicity, as well as what I call “shifting mixture” and “invisible mixture.” Shifting mixture speaks to the fluidity of race and the multiple ways anyone can racially identify. The term invisible mixture reflects the extent to which people with racially mixed backgrounds may not look “clearly mixed.” The term invisible mixture also attempts to capture the dilemma of choosing racial identities that may be incongruous with physical appearance. Invisibly mixed people may include individuals who claim one race without contestation because they have an appearance that aligns with their preferred racial identity.37 Arguably, in this contemporary moment, the increasing number of racial identity options available makes it possible for people to choose memberships in more than one racial group. People are no longer firmly forced into (or “boxed in” by) racial categories. The “racial identity grab bag”38 facilitates this choice. In the case of the Curry family, some people may see them as “clearly mixed,” others may see them as black, and others still may see them as “more than black” (given Ayesha Curry’s Asian and white ancestry).39

Introduction | 13

That is, some may view the Curry parents as racially mixed at one generational level while seeing their children as differently mixed. The Curry couple is differently mixed from one another as they are from their respective parents. The same could be said about their children. Thus, people can see in/visible mixture or “different degrees of racial mixture” on individual, relational, and familial levels. These different ways of seeing speak to how racially mixed individuals are (mis)read as “more or less multiracial.” The double entendre here signals the extent to which racial mixture may be recognized across generations and then also dismissed or diminished as relatively insignificant, perhaps given the social construction of race and its attendant arbitrariness. The second interpretation of “more or less multiracial” could also include recognition of the normalization of racial mixture such that someone or a family unit is seen as “more or less multiracial” in ways not deemed provocative or intentionally subversive but rather commonplace and mundane.

Clarifying Racial Mixture by Border Patrolling The liminal racial space that the former royals and the Curry family occupy has partially provoked the public’s interest because such liminality can create curiosity and anxiety.40 Racial mixture, as it exists on individual, relational, and familial levels, provokes questions. One typical way people attempt to resolve any uncertainty about said mixture is to ask the quintessential question, “What are you?” This question can be understood as a form of racial regulation. In studying the significance of racial regulation, sociologists have found ample evidence, in historical and contemporary society, of the policing of racial borders.41 Where interracial intimacy is concerned, opponents attempt to regulate race and romance through various strategies.42 Opposition to race mixing reflects and upholds the privileged position of whiteness within the racial hierarchy. The “What are you?” question thus reflects a form of “border patrolling.”43 Border patrolling reflects an attempt to reinforce racial categories and determine the best racial group to locate the liminal, to find the best place for a person in two or more racial groups. Thus, some people

14 | Introduction

engage in “border patrolling” to satisfy any curiosity or anxiety about others who arguably appear racially indeterminate or ambiguous. Racial regulation generally refuses to accommodate racial mixture, much less shifting mixture. Racial regulation works from a place of people needing to know where they stand, as well as where others stand, racially. It demands racial singularity and, by extension, racial loyalty. Racial regulation is an attempt to diminish any racial ambiguity (at individual, relational, and familial levels) and creates a false sense of clarity or certainty about the person in question’s racial identity and “true” place of belonging. Formal racial regulation has historically existed through legislation, including anti-­miscegenation laws.44 Additionally, people perpetuate racial regulation by “re-­creating, reproducing, and clarifying the color line” and engage in “borderism”: “a unique form of discrimination faced by those who cross the color line, do not stick with their own, or attempt to claim membership (or are placed by others) in more than one racial group. Like racism, borderism is central to American society. It is a product of a racist system yet comes from both sides.”45 Because multiracial people can claim two or more races or even choose one single race (as has historically been the case), they may experience border patrolling from more than two sides of the color line.46 Multiracial people who look “clearly mixed” often encounter racial regulation or borderism from many sides or multiple directions because of their racially ambiguous appearance. Their physical approximation of more than one race can enable them to pass into numerous racial (and ethnic) groups, including their own, as well as those outside their background (ones actually in their own heritage and those presumed to be). However, multiracial people who are what I call “invisibly mixed,” who appear to be more firmly anchored or situated in one and only one racial group, also face contestation of their racial identity. This racial border-­patrolling behavior happens as multiracial people who look singularly or implicitly white, Asian, Native American, or black are viewed (and treated) accordingly. That is, they are viewed as members of racial group(s) to which they may or may not lay claims. Consequently, they may have better or worse social interactions and other experiences, largely contingent on others’ perception of their racial location.

Introduction | 15

The Situational Visibility of Racial Mixture With racial mixture not always immediately visible or recognizable as such, many multiracial people can arguably be un/seen in interracial families; the legibility of their racial identity is contingent on many factors, including (1) who is doing the deciphering and (2) the different ways of looking at any given time, in any given place. Racial mixture creates “racial optical illusions.”47 In contemporary families, multiracial people arguably have more space to claim any known racial mixture in their heritage. Nevertheless, claims to a racially mixed identity are not without contestation. Historically, this contestation has occurred amid collective efforts to maintain the color line. Multiracial people have not always felt the freedom to choose and publicly assert their preferred racial identity without penalty. Instead, many opt to align their public identities with others’ perceptions of them. The history of race mixing in this country provides some context for understanding these contestations and the regulation of race. Both race and romance remain regulated, albeit in an ostensibly less intensified way than before. Consider a rather inconsequential example: emojis. Despite increased usage and popularity of emojis, since their introduction almost two decades ago, a noticeable pattern has persisted: a lack of interracial couples amid a lack of racial diversity. In fact, until recently, none of the previously existent emojis connoting family explicitly symbolized the everyday reality of interracial intimacy. That is, no (visible) racial variation existed among the available emojis. Instead, only a singular (Simpsons-­esque yellow) option exists, set as the default. This limited option effectively even excluded couples of other skin tones or colors. (Yet, for something as mundane as a “thumbs up,” a range of racial options exists in various colors including peach, beige, yellow, light brown, brown, and dark brown). This form of exclusion reflects the aforementioned centrality of whiteness and serves as an illustration of institutional racism.48 (Even with the newly updated available options—­which allow people to more accurately represent their particular relational mix—­these interactive options exclude children from these emojis of interracial couples).

16 | Introduction

The technology says a lot about who can, should, or does partner with whom, when the only people partnered or depicted with heart signs and/or children are one color, and only one color (or exclusively “one and only one” color).49 If a range of options exist for other emojis (including different sports like swimming and basketball), why does the same range of (albeit limited) options not exist for ones pertaining to families, romantic relationships, and partnerships? The lack of available options underscores the rule of racial homogamy. It disappears any and all difference, negating the presence of people of color in romantic relationships (with whites or with other people of color). This lack also speaks to the way multiracial people disappear in different ways in society when we attempt to communicate about romantic relationships, generally, and interracial relationships, specifically. Author Danzy Senna offers up a lighthearted literary example of how situationally in/visible mixture mitigates the regulation of race and romance; she draws a fine line between fact and fiction, as she often does, in crafting the story of Helga and Dave and their neighbors Rachel and Hewitt to illustrate the “hazards of visibility,”50 or perhaps of invisibility.51 Narrating from the perspective of Rachel in “What’s the Matter with Helga and Dave?” Senna introduces readers to a happily married, and debatably interracial, couple: “When I married Hewitt, I didn’t realize—­among other things—­that I would become a member of that mewling and defensive group of people known as Interracial Couples. And who could fault them their mewling? Everywhere I went with Hewitt, strangers commented—­in subtle and not so subtle ways—­on the face of our unlikely union: me, a white woman, married to him, a black man.” The world, it seemed, though not united in their opinion of our kind, was united in their awareness of our kind, and by extension, their need to remark upon it—­the fact of me, a white woman, married to him, a black man. The only problem, of course, was that it wasn’t true. Any of it. I was not a white woman and Hewitt was not a black man—­at least not technically speaking. We were both of mixed heritage. That is, we each had one white parent and one black parent. And we’d each come out with enough features of one parent to place us in different categories. Hewitt

Introduction | 17

had come out looking to the world like a black man, and I’d come out looking to the world like a white woman, so when we got together, it was like we were repeating our parents’ history all over again. We were supposed to be the next generation, all newfangled and melting-­potted, but instead we were like Russian nesting dolls. When you opened our parents’ bodies you found a replica of their struggle, no matter how hard we tried to transcend it.52

As two racially mixed people, Rachel and Hewitt are, respectively, passing as singularly white and singularly black or read as implicitly white and black. Consequently, they are perceived as an interracial couple, even as they struggle to see or understand themselves as such (since they are both mixed, with the same [black and white] racial mixture). Their experience illustrates the different ways of seeing race and seeing racial differences, in real and imagined ways.53 It also begs the questions, “Are they an interracial couple?” and “Is theirs an interracial relationship?” As real people with the same known racially mixed heritage, could a couple like the otherwise fictional characters Rachel and Hewitt be counted among the eleven million people in interracial marriages in the United States? If so, hypothetical “Hewitt” would likely be seen as a member of a group of black men—­who are twice as likely to marry a “Rachel” (a white woman) than black women are to marry white men.54 The racial logic that limits people’s racial identity options and locations to “one and only one” race makes this the new reality for the couple, the newly discovered (or is it always already?) interracial couple, that is. What would it mean if, were they not fictional characters, Rachel might be presumed to have an “exclusively white identity”55 and Hewitt, an “exclusively black identity”? Consider the Rachels and Hewitts of the world, people who create implicitly interracial relationships (ones that appear so) and externally experience their relationship as such but otherwise might not actively or readily recognize themselves (privately or internally) as being an “interracial” couple. There are arguably many multiracial people walking around this country looking like Hewitt and his wife, Rachel. They may be walking around knowing that they are multiracial but remain “invisibly mixed.” They may effectively but unintentionally passing as “some other race,” besides the ones they want to call home. Individually, they may appear to be “one and

18 | Introduction

only one” race, different from one another yet curiously different from themselves. What is the experience of being denied the putative privilege or advantage that comes with being more “clearly mixed”? For answers, we can certainly turn to the aforementioned short story by Senna and much of her other work, itself a kind of hybrid form of writing that blends fact and fiction. What Senna offers up here is a way of exploring in/visible mixture and its potential attendant hazards. This mixture is individual and relational, historical, and contemporary.56 This mixture is also filial when one makes claims to mixture based on what she calls “mixed heritage.” This mixture is individual when a person makes a (constrained) choice about their preferred racial identity. This individual choice may shift over time and space, across the life course, and within different historical moments. This individual choice thus has geographical, social, political, historical, and temporal inflections. But it also has relational ones as well. How is that? The preferred racial identities of individuals may or may not change as individuals enter into long(er)-­term relationships and commitments to one another and learn new racial grammars as a result of this interracial intimacy.57 Feminist sociologists contend that individuals living in interracial families develop a different racial consciousness or a greater awareness of the racial realities that their intimate partner and/or children experience;58 they develop “racial literacy,”59 or a skill set that enables conversations about race, and a better understanding of the lived experiences of people in various racial (and ethnic) groups. Members of interracial families often develop racial literacy by witnessing one another’s racial reality60 and/or experiencing racial border patrolling: The belief that people ought to stick with their own is the driving force behind efforts to force individuals to follow prescribed racial rules. Border patrollers often think [without much critical analysis] that they can easily differentiate between insiders and outsiders. Once the patroller has determined a person’s appropriate category, he or she will attempt to coerce that person into following the category’s racial scripts.61

That “whites patrol whites, and blacks patrol black and multiracial people”62 in a racially divisive society can be seen in Senna’s fiction. Senna’s characters confront the precarity of living on racial fault lines63 and

Introduction | 19

“navigating interracial borders.”64 Unlike many Americans, they can, to varying degrees and abilities or skill levels, discuss race without denying racism.65 Senna pulls readers into the backstage of this life, giving us a glimpse into the impact of the regulation of interracial intimacy on couples and others. What pervades or links these experiences across these various texts involves descriptions of feelings of frustration, and some confusion, about why people’s partner choice(s) provoke such attention, mostly from strangers (although certainly from family, friends, colleagues, neighbors, and others), particularly when there is the perception that racial borders have been crossed in the process. In the company of others, Dave laments that his choice in marital partner elicits such scrutiny and that their presence as an interracial couple warrants such surveillance in public. Senna’s literary example also loops back to DaCosta’s argument that racially mixed families elicit a lot of unsolicited, if unwarranted, attention.66 These texts thread the literary with the literal lives of people maneuvering around color lines in society.

Multiracial People as “Janus-­Like” Faces, Or How Looks Can Be Deceiving Reflecting on the previous discussion and looping back to my earlier discussion of the way multiracial people appear and disappear in plain sight,67 I return to the ideas of Mat Johnson.68 Much like the aforementioned Senna, Johnson’s work seems to muddy the real and imagined. As fiction, Loving Day provides another literary example that accomplishes the ambition of making (invisible) mixture visible. In the novel, Johnson grapples with what it means to be invisibly mixed or a white-­looking person of color (a white-­passing person of color).69 Johnson’s novel illustrates the dilemma of dealing with invisible mixture and any incongruity between others’ perceptions of his race (viewed as white), physical appearance (in his case, as white), and preferred racial identity (as black and/or multiracial). Johnson writes, I am a racial optical illusion. I am as visually duplicitous as the illustration of the young beauty that’s also the illustration of the old hag. Whoever

20 | Introduction

sees the beauty will always see the beauty, even if the image of the hag can be pointed out to exist in the same etching. Whoever sees the hag will be equally resolute. The people who see me as white always will, and will think it’s madness that anyone else could come to any other conclusion, holding to this falsehood regardless of learning my true identity. The people who see me as black cannot imagine how a sane, intelligent person could be so blind not to understand this, despite my pale-­skinned presence. The only influence I have over this perception, if any, is in the initial encounter. Here is my chance to be categorized as black, with an asterisk. The asterisk is my whole body.70

Johnson’s words illuminate the im/possibility of invisible mixture, pointing to the insistence of others in knowing and understanding race. This passage speaks to the simultaneous legibility of race, even as (in this case, racially mixed) people are misread. The insistence, on the behalf of others, complicates the embodiment of invisible mixture, as such a multiracial person cannot easily rely on racial markers, or their “body as evidence,”71 as some verifiable mechanism of mixture. They can make claims to racial mixture, but those claims can (as they often are) always be contested. As an aside, in real life, Johnson reflects on this question of multiracial identity. As a participant in the documentary The Loving Generation, Johnson explains, “I grew up in the 70s in Philly. And when you had one black parent, and one white parent, you were black. There wasn’t really a choice seen at that time. I mean, there’s people in my family over hundreds of years, who’ve looked like I did, and they were black. And some of them were slaves, so there was never a question of who I was racially.”72 Additionally, in a recent opinion essay, Anna Holmes writes about the author, Mat Johnson . . . is the son of a black mother and a white father, was also interviewed for the documentary. Though he is quick to acknowledge that members of our generation enjoy access to elements of white privilege—­ what he calls ‘off-­white adjacency’—­he explains it’s important to take other factors into consideration when considering the successes of the Loving generation, namely economic class and the outsider-­overachiever dynamic.73

Introduction | 21

Johnson’s fictional character (much like Senna’s) relies on the language and imagery of optical illusions or images that create “perceptual ambiguity.”74 Arguably, these images then likely become synonymous with multiracial people. Yet, as earlier (and eventual) examples illustrate, not all multiracial people look multiracial. Sometimes, following Senna and Johnson, multiracial people look like a singular race, two or more races, white, or “some other race(s).” Sometimes, multiracial people look like any other race(s) than the ones that they want to claim (i.e., the two or more races that actually make up their racial heritage). Many wrestle with the reality of looking invisibly mixed instead of clearly mixed. As a result, some grapple with racial mixture that is both visible and/or invisible that others insist that they can see (clearly mixed) and not (invisibly mixed). These twin ideas, of being clearly and/or invisibly mixed, speak to the im/possibility of seeing the unseen. They help make the multiracial (person) within the interracial (relationship) more visible, legible, and comprehensible. These questions draw attention to the act of passing, however actively or passively done by people with racially mixed parentage and heritage.75 Some people purposefully pass from black to white, while others do so inadvertently, without active intention (often if there exists “more black in them than their appearance implies,” to paraphrase Johnson).76 Dawkins explores what it means for American society that the racial classification or categorization system can be widely observed (the racial rules of categorization followed), yet people who have the appearance of one race can slip from one category to another. She discusses this in the context of contradictions, or ironies, and considers cases in which white-­looking multiracial people have passed into categorical whiteness. Dawkins’s work gives us the tools to understand how multiracial people can pass into singular racial categories and effectively so with their convincing performances of race. As a different kind of racial privilege, being “clearly invisible” suggests that a person’s racial mixture may not be apparent or obvious to others (or even the individual in question) because this mixture is veiled by whiteness.

22 | Introduction

Race, Romance, and Racial Hierarchy: The Precarity of Multiraciality Threading together the previously mentioned texts generates a greater appreciation for the precarious place of multiracials in families and society and within the racial hierarchy. This hierarchy and the triangulation of racial categorization tell us a lot about the quality of life that people will enjoy (or not). It reflects the racial stratification in the nation, which informs so many of the opportunities and resources people can access, including housing, health care, well-­being,77 and even love and romantic relationships.78 That is, research has shown how race and racial stratification inform people’s experiences with and opportunities for marriage, navigating the dating market, and finding love.79 The racial hierarchy informs how people participate in the practice of the formation of identity and relationships, as well as the regulation of race and romance or racial border patrolling. With many multiracial people “hiding in plain sight,” enjoying the advantages of appearing to blend into socially-­constructed-­as-­singular racial categories, this very “blending into” can be read as a disruption to the imagined cohesion of any given racial category. Implicitly white or white-­adjacent multiracials reap the benefits of their closer approximation of whiteness, even as their racial mixture (once known) might otherwise compromise their access to white privilege. Invisibly mixed people have different access to said racial privilege. Race is “both easy to see and impossible to define.”80 Its mystery exists in the number of ways of seeing race differently in the same person across time and space. Matthew Guterl uses the example of literary figure Langston Hughes, who was laughed at and called a “white man” after (1) making claims that he was a Negro and (2) attempting racial solidarity with Liberians: “A Liberian crewmate familiar with the physical signposts helpfully had translated the local understanding. Any visible mixture, he told Hughes, made one white; and the public absence of mixture, in turn, made one black.”81 In many ways, this stance contrasts with that of hypodescent, or the one-­drop-­of-­black-­blood rule in America, which renders a person with any known African ancestry black. Relying on the presence or absence of visible mixture might mean that, despite using the “same visual practice—­a way of looking for distinctions—­to

Introduction | 23

read these little details,” people arrive at different conclusions.82 That is, depending on the dominant racial paradigms of a particular time, place, and space, people read race contingent on those variables. They make racial distinctions by reading race through skin color, hair texture, or “by anything that might reveal mixture or its absence, a shared catalog of clues read differently,” as particularly, perhaps cumulatively, informed by different social environments, circumstances, and historical moments.83 Multiple ways of reading race on the body exist, and people can arrive at different assessments of the racial location of any given person. One problematic aspect of these varied assessments relates to the limitations imposed on individuals, at others’ insistence. It boxes people into a corner. This book is an examination of how multiracial people put themselves into, or work their way out of, these boxes: how others sometimes corner them into choosing racial identities and/or scrutinize their romantic partners. This book borrows from, and knits together, sociological literature, literary sources, personal memoirs, and the narratives of the sixty multiracial people with whom I conducted qualitative interviews. As you will see throughout this book, these individuals of various racial combinations have experiences that converge and diverge, that speak to the promises and pitfalls of being multiracial in this contemporary moment. They share what it is like to navigate racial borders and assert their preferred racial identity in public and private. They also discuss how race does (and does not) shape their romantic partner choices and interracial relationships. While many of the respondents themselves may not have seen their romantic partner choices as worthy of investigation, as a sociologist, I took particular interest in their relationship histories and the ways in which race shapes their choices in racial identity and romantic partners. Curious about how individuals often described as “bridges”84 or racial border blenders, see themselves racially (and, by extension, how they view their role in this process of potentially ameliorating race relations), I set out to interview as many multiracial people of any racial combinations that I could find who would willingly consent to participate in these interview conversations. Several respondents individuated these choices, not seeing or situating their choices in the contradictions of a contemporary moment that affords some of them greater choices and others greater constraints to

24 | Introduction

these choices, in terms of both racial identity and romantic partner(s). That is, they failed to fully comprehend the extent to which the contemporary historical moment supported, for some of them, many of these decisions while impeding or dissuading others’ decisions. Most had not seriously considered the impact of social norms and pressures on these choices and their decisions to enter interracial relationships of their own. Were my respondents unable to see themselves as part of “love’s revolution”85 because of their own myopia or color blindness?86 Many of the people I spoke with made comments that I now hear as echoes of and traces to Mildred Loving, the aforementioned accidental activist who became a household name for marrying Richard Loving before interracial marriages were legal. For some of these respondents, they move throughout the social world with racial mixture that proves “clearly invisible”87 or “invisibly mixed.”88 Thus, invisible mixture speaks to the way racial mixture hides in plain sight such that people do not immediately detect racial mixture in any individual in question—­a central theme of this book.

Thinking Mixture, Thinking about Racial Borders Throughout this book, I consider how people with racially mixed parentage or heritage decide how to racially identify, experience their racial identities, and exercise autonomy to experience agency in their choice of romantic partner, given the social forces that attempt to regulate both race (identity) and romance (partner choices). In “thinking mixture” and “thinking the border,” I consider how individuals with racially mixed parentage and heritage confront socially constructed borders around their racial identity and romantic partner choices, as well as the intersections and iterations of both. This book makes space for the experiences of both “clearly mixed” multiracial individuals, as well as any “invisible mixture” that these individuals manage individually, interpersonally, and, in particular, while searching for a romantic partner or navigating their romantic careers. The questions that float throughout this work follow: What does “multiracial” mean, and who is “multiracial”? What constitutes an “interracial” relationship anyway? Are “multiracial” people always already in “interracial relationships”? Who decides? Do people who look “clearly

Introduction | 25

mixed” have more or less racial identity options? Are they “more or less multiracial”? Does looking “clearly mixed” blur or brighten racial boundaries, making the borders of race easier to see or easier to overlook and ignore? Do these individuals always already appear to be in interracial relationships with partners of any racial group(s), or do their ostensibly interracial relationships hide in plain sight? What are the ways others (from strangers to significant others) perceive multiracial people in terms of their racial identities and their romantic relationships? How are these perceptions shaped by the social locations and particular racial combinations, not only of the multiracial people in question but also of anyone doing the questioning? These social locations are “borderlands,”89 or interstitial places90 that reflect the liminal location of many multiracial people between socially constructed singular racial categories.91 When people lack familiarity with racial multiplicity (and any attendant shifting mixture), they respond to multiracial individuals in a variety of ways. This builds on, but departs from, the work of scholars who found evidence that for many multiracial individuals, their racial identity changes depending on a variety of factors, including who is posing the question.92 Other researchers contend that multiracial individuals choose from a number of increasingly possible (but not always uncontested) options. For example, biracial individuals assert any or all of the following: singular, border, protean, and/or transcendent identities; individuals who claim both races may experience validation around this identity or not (through invalidation).93 Scholars suggest that biracial people can assert a “blended” identity with an emphasis on one race (in their background).94 The extant literature on multiracial identity provides evidence that racially mixed individuals choose from a variety of identity options. Many people ask questions to understand the meanings and lived experiences of people in the borderlands. They apply a stasis to the term multiracial, presuming that people who are located in this category remain fixed there. This presumption ignores or overlooks the ways multiracial people may move (or be moved) in and out of racial locations. This multiracial movement reflects shifting mixture, as multiracial people experience (self-­selected and/or forced) shifts in their racial identities over time and space. This shifting mixture means that responses to the quintessential question, “What are you?” may never elicit the same response

26 | Introduction

from a multiracial person. Shifting mixture is an experience applicable to anyone, but in this work, I focus on multiracial people.

Objectives of This Book Many families suffer under the illusion of racial difference, believing themselves to be white95 or black or some other race(s). Seldom do people born into families that appear to be racially cohesive (racially singular) interrogate their racial identity or that of their family as a unit. What would it mean for people to interrogate any invisible mixture that exists within families, to explore their family backgrounds, to possibly uncover evidence of racial mixture? What would it mean to know of this racial mixture but refuse (or simply choose not) to acknowledge it on individual and/or familial levels? When thinking about how people cross the color line to form interracial relationships, what would it mean to consider the possibility that a person may be in a relationship that is at once interracial and not? What is the language to describe such relationships that involve individuals whose racial group memberships may not be entirely distinct but rather remain overlapping such that they intersect at some points? What language would allow for recognition of some shared or overlapping racial group membership and experiences? How would we point to the ways in which, as just one example, a black–­white biracial person, shares commonalities with whites and blacks or even beyond both of those groups? What would it mean to theoretically wrestle with racial fluidity of identity, in general, and among multiracial people in romantic relationships, in particular? Researchers grapple with this conundrum96 and begin to chart the path to the questions I pose next: What would it mean to center multiracial people in interracial relationships, where said multiracial people are adults choosing their own romantic partners, rather than being exalted or celebrated for having the “best of both worlds”? What do such relationships look like optically and socially? Are these relationships readily recognized as interracial relationships or are the members of these couples approximating each other to the degree that they disappear differences in their respective racial identity and their racial background or heritage? I discuss this in more depth later.

Introduction | 27

In search of answers to these and other questions, I write this book in an effort to highlight how many multiracial people hide in plain sight in general and/or in romantic relationships with people who may look physically similar to them. I draw attention to the ways multiracial people often fall out of the conversation on interracial relationships and families except when collective concerns crystallize around the question, “What about the children?” To this end, this book project is an intervention; it builds on my previous research and captures my attempt to make space for multiracial people in interracial relationships.97 In The Borders of Race, I tell the story of how multiracial respondents navigate the borders of race, negotiating their racial identities with strangers, family members, and friends, and internalize or reconcile their racial identities for themselves. In this book, I go one step further by considering how multiracial people manage their preferred racial identity and their romantic partner choices. I explore what it means to be multiracial and to choose any number of racial options that may (or may not) impact the experience of being in an interracial relationship (what counts or not). I also consider the limits of legibility and visibility by examining multiracial people’s understanding of others’ perceptions of their racial identity and their romantic relationships to gain a greater understanding of how multiracial people are potentially amplifying or muddying color lines. This book engages with these observations written by Rachel Moran: We prefer to believe in the spontaneity of that moment of connection. We choose not to think about how our personal histories have endowed us with the characteristics that make us suitable or unsuitable, lovable or unlovable. That heady inattention permits us to insist that colorblindness has been achieved. Yet, no matter how a romantic impulse may seem to overwhelm reason, love’s power is circumscribed by pervasive patterns of segregation, so commonplace that they are taken for granted. These patterns in turn determine who seems familiar, who is available, and whose personal stories “open halfway through” are likely to be on the same page as our own.98

Moran’s observations speak to the reality of writer Gregory Howard Williams, who, like many other multiracial people, “struggles with how

28 | Introduction

to build his own family because he is not sure how his racial identity should influence his romantic choices.”99 My book is an exploration of the questions that emerge from any tensions around figuring out and wrestling with these questions of racial identity (Who am I?) and romantic relationships (With whom should I partner?). In the book, I examine the experiences that multiracial people have around their racial identity options and romantic partner choices. I explore to what extent they enjoy any ostensibly increased range of options or considerably less restraint in terms of asserting their agency as they make these choices regarding their preferred racial identity and romantic partnerships.

Organization of the Book Throughout this book, I make racial mixture more visible by drawing attention to the ways in which multiracial people make choices regarding their racial identities and romantic partner choices. Multiracial people may negotiate any incongruity between their physical appearance, their preferred racial identity, and others’ perceptions of multiracial people. Multiracial people do not always appear to be racially mixed. When they appear “invisibly mixed” instead of “clearly mixed,” they must manage different kinds of social interactions with others. In chapter 1, I draw from the national enumeration efforts of the US Census Bureau to provide statistical information on interracial relationships. As a way to continue exploring “invisible mixture” and mapping multiracial people into scholarly and popular discussions about interracial relationships, I interrogate the construction and meanings of interracial relationships. I also discuss the historical regulation of race and romance. Finally, I build on the literary examples presented in the introduction, offering some illustrations of invisible mixture. In chapter 2, I explore the contours of “contested choices” made during social interactions with strangers. I argue that many of these interactions suggest that multiracial people often make such choices (sometimes amid social constraints) regarding their racial identities and romantic partners. In chapter 3, I explore what I call “ironic interactions” or those that involve the parents of my multiracial respondents. Specifically, I focus

Introduction | 29

on some of the contradictory messages that stem from parents who themselves have formed their own interracial relationships and, in turn, offer dubious advice or dissuade their multiracial children from blurring racial borders any further in future generations. In chapter 4, I consider the ways that some of the romantic partners of the respective multiracial respondents participated in the regulation of race by policing the preferred racial identities or rejecting the racial mixture of said multiracial respondent. In the final chapter (chapter 5), my focal point is on “disappearing difference.” That is, I look at how multiracial people attempt to blend racial borders or mask the appearance of any racial mixture in themselves or their chosen romantic relationships. I situate my discussion in the broader context of a colorist society in which the current racial hierarchy privileges whiteness and penalizes blackness. This work highlights the importance of seeing in/visible mixture and studying shifting mixture as a means of contributing to the literature on ways multiracial people form their identities and romantic relationships. This work also challenges the idea of multiracial people in “interracial” relationships as sites of racial harmony, the dissolution of racial categories, hierarchies, and tensions. I provide evidence to demonstrate this by showing that multiracial people do not always embrace multiraciality or the multiplicity of identities. Instead, they often opt for singularity. In doing so, they surprisingly support rather than subvert the racial classification system.

1

Making Multiracials Visible

For the most part, families have been constructed around racial mythologies that perpetuate the idea that race is real, biologically speaking, and that racial borders, categorically speaking, must be maintained.1 Throughout history, families have been encouraged to form in ways that sustain the illusion of race.2 The construction of families, in historical and contemporary society, arguably reinforces the idea of race and racial boundaries.3 Over time and space, people have largely been encouraged to reproduce race through family structures. Resistance to the blurring and blending of those boundaries demonstrates a lingering opposition to the crossing of color lines. That the majority of families identify as or imagine their family unit as cohering around a single race illustrates a deep investment in maintaining the imagined boundaries around race and racial categories.4 Until 1967, marriage between people of different races was illegal. In Loving v. the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Supreme Court determined that the ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional.5 It was not until the now-­famous Loving case that the ban against interracial marriages had been legally challenged. Before that case was decided, Mildred (Jeter) Loving and Richard Loving were technically breaking the law for loving and illegally wedding one another. The young couple married in Virginia in 1958, at a time when miscegenation, or race mixing, was legally prohibited; their interracial marriage was deemed illegal for several years before they decided to pursue legal justice.6 Based on various accounts, both Mildred and Richard were unassuming people who simply wanted the right to marry. The Lovings had a motif of a name; no more meta a surname seems possible, considering their intention to lead with love and to rebuke the contention around their (interracial) loving. They wanted to enjoy loving each other, without the scrutiny of judgment and the harassment of hateful and disapproving others. Mildred supposedly suggested that she wanted to live a quiet 31

32 | Making Multiracials Visible

life loving her husband. However, when the Lovings decided to take their case to the Supreme Court to defend their marriage and contest opposition to their interracial intimacy, public scrutiny and attention amplified. Like many multiracial people in interracial relationships, Mildred wanted to make decisions about her romantic life with Richard and their respective families without the spectacular surveillance on their bodies, choices, and lives.7 That proved challenging at a time when miscegenation, or race mixing, was considered taboo and punishable by law. As one of the two focal points in that case, Mildred shunned the spotlight; she claimed to have never wanted to become an activist. Although so much attention focused on the couple’s perceived racial differences, much less focused on any real or imagined racial similarities between the couple. For example, in Loving—­simply named after the Lovings—­t he couple is presented as a black/white interracial one. The 2016 film centers on the social and legal challenges the couple faced in their togetherness.8 Although Mildred is often described as a light-­ skinned black woman and Richard as a white man, family members offer a slightly different description, at least of Mildred. On the heels of the film’s release, Mark Loving, Mildred’s grandson, shared his perspective in an interview; he reportedly described the film’s depiction of his grandmother as inaccurate, deeming it misleading and a form of racial profiling.9 He wanted to clarify his grandmother’s racial mixture, to “make her mixture perfectly clear,” if you will. Mark argued that Mildred Jeter was misrepresented (by being presented as black instead of Native American). Another way of describing what Mark Loving calls profiling is what I call “multiracial border patrolling.”10 The term refers to the racial regulation of identity that frequently happens on an individual level to people living in the borderlands,11 on the “fault lines of race.”12 This regulation, as I argue later, also occurs at the relational level, where the racial combinations of members of families and romantic partnerships can be contested and/or accommodated. Mark Loving reportedly insisted that his “grandmother wasn’t black.”13 Elsewhere, he shared, “‘She was Native American. . . . I know during those times, there were only two colors: white and black. . . . But she was Native American, both of her parents were Native American.’

Making Multiracials Visible | 33

Mark Loving also says he has proof—­his grandparents’ marriage license, on which his grandmother was classified as ‘Indian.’ However, there may be a simple reason she was labeled Indian, and that is some old Virginia history”:14 In 1930, legislators, fearing that blacks would use the Indian claim to subvert the law, restricted the Indian classification to reservation Indians on the Paumkey and Mattaponi Reservations in King William County, the nation’s older reservations. Numerous non-­reservation citizens claiming an Indian identity circumvented the restriction by marrying in Washington, D.C., where they were able to obtain marriage licenses with the Indian racial designation. Mildred Loving was no exception. Her racial identity was informed by the deeply entrenched racial politics of her community in Central Point, Virginia. Interestingly enough, Coleman also spoke with one of the Lovings’ lawyers, Bernard Cohen, and he said that Mildred Loving identified only as black to him. . . . We can probably assume that Mildred Loving was no different from some black people you meet who want to assert their Native American heritage, but as noted in Professor Henry Louis Gates’ popular article (“Why Most Black People Aren’t Part Indian”), the truth of the matter is that just because you have ‘high cheekbones and straight black hair’ doesn’t mean you have Native American blood. . . . However, as far as Mark Loving is concerned, his grandmother wouldn’t be OK with the upcoming Loving film because, he says, her true identity is being erased and she wasn’t trying to be an activist.15

Additional interest in the Lovings grew as the 50th anniversary of their case approached: Loving [the film]—­based on the intriguing story of Richard and Mildred Loving . . . adheres relatively closely to the historical account. . . . The film also, however, sticks close to popular myths that have dogged the case for decades, particularly by contextualizing the story within a black/white racial binary—­when in fact Richard and Mildred Loving are prime examples of the way such lines have long been blurred.16

Based on some sources, Mildred Loving did speak about and acknowledged her background (that she was Native American).17 According

34 | Making Multiracials Visible

to a contrasting account, Mildred Loving was not singularly Native American but rather multiracial. She putatively had both Native American and African American heritage. This nuance is often lost in the accounts of the Lovings and of Mildred, in particular.18 Their racial identities (individually) and their interracial romance (and/or relational identities) are often seen and framed in black-­and-­white terms, literally and figuratively. For Mildred, being seen as “just black” aligns with the times, then and arguably now. Nevertheless, this view flattens out her racial multiplicity into singularity.19 In this process, her racial mixture became invisible mixture. It meant that she was read as black despite her own claims in life (to a potentially different preferred racial identity), and her family’s claims since her death, that she has both black and Native American heritage. That Mildred was denied the full complexity of her racial multiplicity and the freedom to legally choose whom she wanted to marry speaks to the historical context and conditions that denied her (and others like her) these choices—­the choice to be Native American, not black (or both Native American and black), and the choice to marry her white partner, Richard. For the Lovings, the presumed polarity of their racial locations (as black and white) informed so much of the everyday hostilities and microaggressions they faced. The story of the Lovings, as depicted in Loving, stands in slight contrast to that depicted in the 1967 film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. In the latter film, which was released six months to the day post-­Loving, the two main characters are an arguably less ambiguous example of an interracial relationship. This comparison helps illustrate how the media represents racial difference within romantic relationships and relies heavily on visible differences in such depictions and representations. Otherwise, there would be “nothing to see here.” Collective understandings of interracial relationships, as shaped by the media, foster this view of visibly mixed couples. The depiction of difference in Loving amplifies racial differences that may depart from how Richard and Mildred actually autonomously identified themselves and mutually understood each other. From the previous accounts, Mildred is also depicted in ways that may not accurately capture or reflect who she was in life or how she viewed herself. It seems

Making Multiracials Visible | 35

increasingly apparent that Mildred Loving did not envision herself a revolutionary or a change agent, despite playing a significant part in igniting “love’s revolution.”20 Mildred Loving’s involvement in an interracial relationship was seen as radical, in part because of the legal, cultural, and social opposition to race mixing. The history of interracial intimacy not always been chosen or experienced in consensual ways informed much of the public’s view of the Lovings’ relationship. Historically, the risks have outweighed the rewards. White people entering interracial relationships or engaging in interracial intimacy are often viewed as “desiring the Other,”21 while people of color are viewed as valuable primarily for just that, being seen as desirable (yet also, curiously, despicable).22 The practice of systemic sexual exploitation has tainted the term interracial intimacy,” given the forced sexual contact between the oppressor and the oppressed.23 Dominant discourses created by the former and circulated widely in society advanced mythologies and sexual scripts of the latter as “sexually available.” These “dangerous discourses,” as I call them, have proved nefarious in rendering women of color, and black women in particular, incapable of being raped or sexually victimized.24 As a brown woman with a light skin color, Mildred was potentially, debatably, jeopardizing her own safety and well-­being for her involvement with Richard. I say debatably here to acknowledge the ways women of color have been vulnerable to real and imagined threats of violence from white men in both contemporary and historical contexts.25 For some historical perspective, Danielle McGuire’s treatment of this topic offers additional insight and further detail of the daily injustices that black women faced during the mid-­1900s.26 The actual dynamics of the Lovings’ life in their hometown in Caroline County elude us. The couple may have led the most mundane life, aside from the fact that they were breaking the law. Rather than view (1) the law itself as retrograde, (2) the act of loving someone perceived as racially different as radical, or (3) the persons themselves as radical for engaging in such (radical) acts, it seemed easier for people to characterize and romanticize the Lovings and their individual and collective action. Individually, they were viewed as courageous, for boldly crossing the color line (or so the story goes). But by Mildred’s accounts, she loved a man who happened to be white or was viewed as such, just as

36 | Making Multiracials Visible

she was viewed as black. And by others’ accounts still, we learn that this couple, celebrated for crossing the color line and presumably blurring the line between black and white, were themselves managing blurry details about their own demographics and particular racial mixture: Richard’s ancestral roots were steeped in white southern patriarchal tradition. According to the 1830 census, his paternal ancestor Lewis Loving owned seven slaves. Richard’s paternal grandfather, T.P. Farmer, served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. Prior to Richard’s marriage to Mildred on June 2, 1958, the Loving surname, at least in Caroline County, was the exclusive property of its white residents. The county court established the couple’s racial identity by their birth certificates: Richard Perry Loving, ‘white’ and Mildred Delores Jeter ‘colored,’ born 1933 and 1939 respectively. But, while Richard’s race was marked by the physical and legal constructions of whiteness, geographical and social markers also placed him on the opposite side of the color line.27

That is, through their marriage, the two problematized whiteness and blackness. In marrying Richard, Mildred Jeter became a Loving; she also gained some access to white privilege by proxy, despite the contentious legal battle the couple faced. It seems any claims she made to Native American ancestry faded into black (even as such claims might be read as an attempt to maneuver away from blackness). The legal prohibitions against race mixing at the time made claiming a racially mixed identity fraught with complications. Making public claims to a multiracial identity (given that interracial marriages were then illegal) would have announced an intergenerational legacy of the very transgressive behavior in which she and Richard engaged: interracial intimacy. Rather than risk additional racism as a result of such an acknowledgment of a then forbidden truth, Mildred may have chosen a black identity to assert publicly. Claiming a multiracial or Native American identity likely would not have protected her from the harm of the racial harassment and discrimination that she faced individually and relationally. Whether she identified as Native American, black, or both, Mildred would have continued to encounter and confront racism as a person of color; her romantic relationship worked to intensify that racism.28

Making Multiracials Visible | 37

Such a public proclamation (identifying as anything but black or “more than black”29) would surely have compromised any ostensible benefits to the curious inheritance of racial mixture, given the illegality of interraciality in that moment and previous ones. In claiming “mixed race,” Mildred might likely have endured a double penalty, for (1) being racially mixed at a time when race mixing was socially rejected and legally regulated and, by extension, (2) for being the product of her parents’ presumed transgressions vis-­à-­vis this illicit union. (The penalty incurred might only be minimized were her parents’ union reflective of the merging of two marginalized groups: Native Americans and blacks.) Were Mildred’s mixture one of whiteness and blackness, surely the staunch (over)protection of privileged whiteness would have prevailed as the dominant theme in her individual and relational experiences in everyday life. That aside, the choices Mildred made regarding her racial identity and eventually her romantic partner existed within these historical and social constraints. They reflect the regulation of race and romance, which persists today in different manifestations. The visibility of the Lovings’ interracial marriage was amplified by the times, which were arguably—­at best—­puzzled by such unions and—­at worst—­outwardly predictably antagonistic toward these relationships and any attendant expressions of love. That the Lovings lived “love” like a verb30 made the racial hostilities they faced that much more pronounced and peculiar. The harsh juxtaposition of the sweet love the couple shared, in contrast to the explicit racist violence they endured, captures the complexity of the struggle for freedom and for the right to love legally. In the historical moment then, interracial couples of any racial combinations were legally prohibited and prevented from participating in intimate partnerships. They were considered illicit. To a sustained degree now, interracial couples may still find themselves dissuaded from forming such bonds.31 Alternately, when couples do establish these bonds, they may face a range of responses from others. The then ban on interracial marriages made the act of loving “across the color line” revolutionary. And perhaps it does not matter whether either one of the Lovings considered themselves activists. In so many ways, their love became the case that catapulted them into public view, paving the way for other interracial couples to legally get married if they, too, so desired.

38 | Making Multiracials Visible

The Lovings were banned from marrying because they were viewed as members of two different (read: mutually exclusive) racial groups. At the time, the ban on interracial marriage in their home state of Virginia made it illegal for a person of a certain (presumably singular) racial group (or “one and only one” race) to marry someone of a different (and, again, presumably singular) racial group. Race mixing or miscegenation, as it was called then—­resulted from people of these presumably singular racial group backgrounds uniting. Seldom was race mixture acknowledged as always already intergenerational, despite (bodies as) evidence that supports this point.32 Additionally, the implicit singularity of racial group membership and heritage occludes otherwise in/visible mixture in the national population. The illegality of interraciality worked to uphold racial singularity through normative expectations (that people should “stick to their own kind”). It is important to note that, even if romantic partners had some shared or overlapping racial location, such as whiteness, the two would still be seen as “different” enough, let’s say, if he identified as white and she as black and white biracial. (Imagine, if you will, a Venn diagram of two circles, one representing whiteness and the other representing the racial mixture of whiteness and blackness. The illustration can be read as potentially disappearing differences and/or amplifying similarity. The space between—­where the two meet—­can be theoretically understood as a common ground, or one where differences appear minimal.) Anti-­miscegenation legislation gestures at the impossibility of publicly acknowledging any racial mixture that exists in people individually, relationally (in couples), and filially (within families). (See figure 1.1.) In the case of the Lovings, racial mixture remained invisible or illegible—­at least on an individual level. Their coming together made their ostensible differences more obvious and obscured any real or imagined racial similarities. Their visible mixture, on a romantic relational level, created a unique set of negotiations for them, legally and socially (this continues to be the case for multiracial people in visibly interracial relationships). On a relational level, any invisible mixture of theirs was overlooked. So, too, was any mixture on an individual level (or even on a familial one). Even on a communal level, many of the residents of the county in which they lived were reported as single races, a legally sanctioned and

Making Multiracials Visible | 39

Multiracial (White & Some Other Race/s)

White

Figure 1.1. Shared or Overlapping (white) Racial Group Membership

thus commonplace practice at the time.33 This tactic presumably maintains the appearances of categorical coherence across racial groups. Maintaining categorical bounds also upholds and perpetuates racial stratification based on single-­race categories, as people are sorted accordingly in a pigmentocracy.34 The Lovings attempted to maneuver around the regulation of race and romance of the mid-­twentieth century. They drove to Washington, D.C., to obtain a marriage license there and returned to Virginia with the intent to attempt to live at home peacefully. One might be inclined to wonder if their experience would have been different if they were not visibly different from one another. If they more closely approximated one another, would that have helped buffer them from the steady regulation of race and romance that they faced? The legal discourse around interracial marriage suggests that people can know and tell the difference, to determine if and when they are marrying someone of another race (or an “Other” race).

On Individual and Relational Identity Part of the problem noted earlier is the persistence of hypodescent, or the one-­drop rule, and the continuing significance of racism, as it impeded their interracial intimacy. It also blocked a more accurate and nuanced reading of Mildred Loving’s race. As a result, Mildred was perceived as singularly black, as opposed to black and/or Native American (as she may have preferred but was prevented from publicly claiming at

40 | Making Multiracials Visible

the time). At the individual level of identity, Mildred and Richard had to negotiate the racial rules of the day. Based on the racial logic of that historical moment, they could each only be one and only one race. As a result, Mildred was forced to choose categorical blackness rather than identify as “some other race.” On a relational level, the couple had to manage the pervasive opposition to interracial intimacy, arguably due, in large part, to their visible difference. Her brown skin color contrasted enough with the light skin color of her white husband, Richard, to provoke the antagonism of the local (white) authorities; their togetherness increased the irritation of other opponents. At the time, the nuance or fuller understanding of Mildred’s identity would have been moot, her racial difference symbolized by her brown skin, long dark hair, brown eyes, and other physical features, conveyed enough, or perhaps too much, difference for authorities to even consider a compromise. That he was white and she was not meant that their love was illegal and forbidden. In part, this illustrates how the previous white/black binary (even a white/nonwhite one) reflected the racial hierarchy of that historical moment.35 Speculatively, the Lovings may have been treated much differently by those who opposed their relationship and consequent marriage were they to have identified or been racially recognized as “more than black and white.” How would the “fact” of Mildred’s mixture and the myth of (Richard’s) white racial purity (and racial singularity) have changed the national conversation (and racial regulation) of interracial intimacy? How might it have changed our collective understanding of what constitutes an interracial relationship? These questions engage the speculation as a way to explore invisible mixture. They reflect my intention to “make mixture visible” by offering an updated reading of the Lovings vis-­à-­vis Mildred. The increased availability of information about her racial identity encourages a rereading of his racial identity. If Mildred Loving was not “just black” or even black, perhaps Richard Loving was not “just white.” Making space for invisible mixture in both of their racial identities and heritages might shift the narrative about interracial intimacy. It invites questions about how they would have experienced the mid-­1900s were their marriage more reflective of invisible mixture. If they more closely approximated one another or were Mildred to be read as implicitly white, would their “invisibly interracial” marriage have been

Making Multiracials Visible | 41

met with such (or any) contestation and opposition? Would theirs have been met with even more antagonism if and when anyone detected or registered this invisible mixture? If Mildred more closely approximated Richard in terms of skin color, the two likely would have elided much social or state surveillance. That theirs was a relationship recognized as an interracial one largely explains why they were targeted for their ostensibly transgressive behavior and then applauded and elevated on the heels of their broadly transformative legislative victory.36 Notably, the specific racial combination of the couple and the consequent marriage of a socially dominant (white) person and a multiply marginalized (Native American and black multiracial) one further contextualizes the particular scrutiny they experienced together. Thus, the Lovings prove exemplary in many ways, serving as a powerful model of the possibility love inspires.37 They also serve as a useful embodiment of the social construction and regulation of race and romance. The preceding questions invite readers to think about race and romance. They encourage further consideration of the ways in which nuance changes the conversation. More specifically, we can consider new meanings we might give the Lovings and their interracial relationship given any invisible mixture in either Mildred or Richard. Looking back at the Lovings lets us (re)consider how race has been socially constructed across time and space. Consideration of the Loving family’s experience results in many possible interpretations, even impositions, of race. And, ironically, the tendency toward seeing race through a racial (white/black) binary prevailed then and persists now.

Constructing Race, Constructing Similar Difference Race in the “Loving era” was regarded differently than it is today. Options to publicly choose more than one race have not always been readily available, despite being the racial reality for most Americans.38 (That is, our national history of sexual conquest, as well as consensual sex across racial lines, has simultaneously softened and strengthened the color line). The policing of racial borders or categories meant that any and all race mixing, consensual or coerced, was minimized, ignored, or denied.39 The enumeration of the national population became a

42 | Making Multiracials Visible

mechanism of racial formation in the United States.40 As administered through the Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Census survey outlined the seemingly available options (even as those options have changed—­through slight modifications—­ with every Census administration).41 Even as many people’s lived experiences—­past, present, and future—­ exist “outside of the lines,” so to speak, many feel compelled to conform to the social norms and expectations. While most people prefer choosing one and only one race to describe their preferred racial identity, others feel that the survey neglects to acknowledge racial nuance—­the social fact of being “two or more races.” It was not until 2000 that members of the US population could formally identify as being a part of what the Census classified as the “two or more races” population. In the 1960s (when the Lovings’ case went to the Supreme Court), people who could claim two or more races were not given the opportunity to do so, at least not through formal public channels and processes. Because of the ban on interracial marriage, members of the two or more races population hid in plain sight; they purportedly did not exist because their very existence reflected the impossibility of interracial intimacy at the time. This racial logic was advanced by the dominant group and marked an incredibly myopic view and collective memory of history. Believing that the ban on interracial marriage meant that there would be no race mixing was as shortsighted as believing everyone would buy into the myth of racial purity given the sexual violence and victimization that were foundational to this country. “[T]he racialized sexual transgressions of elite white men on black women were generally overlooked, whereas transgressions of white women on black men were more often prosecuted.”42 The specific sexual exploitation of women of color by white male colonizers meant that forced interracial intimacy was woven into this country’s history, and while the dominant group (rich white men) made an effort to erase evidence of their violations of women of color, their bodily abuses and transgressions could not be hidden, distorted, or erased. Instead, the color continuum that continues into contemporary society remains the “body as evidence” of these coercions and assaults.43 Many of these historical narratives maintained not only the myth of white racial purity but also an attendant white ignorance and innocence.

Making Multiracials Visible | 43

These twin claims, of ignorance and innocence, attempted to alleviate whites of any accountability of their actions.44 As a group, whites perpetuated egregious acts of violence and racism against people of color yet made claims suggesting that they (the former) were not culpable. This disavowal of accountability allowed them to hold racially subordinated groups accountable instead, effectively making them responsible for the very individual and institutional racism created to oppress them. This irony was maintained by a history of white lies, of historical distortions and revisionism that enabled whites to discursively, socially, economically, and politically maintain dominance.45 An investment in these racial mythologies meant an investment in racial ideologies that maintained white dominance, even as all whites did not directly benefit from being in service to whiteness. Nevertheless, a possessive investment in whiteness persisted; parallel narratives about the inferiority of people of color resulted in perceptual distortions about members of these racial groups.46 In particular, black people were viewed through this distorted lens47 and believed to be “lazy,” “dirty,” or otherwise contaminating bodies48 up to little or no good.49 A lingering legacy of slavery, these disparaging views of black people have persisted into contemporary society. To be clear, the perception of whites as always already innocent, even in the face of ample evidence to the contrary (given enacted and expressed violence toward self, others, and society), also constitutes a distorted view.50 However, from this vantage point, most whites occupy a society that positions whites at the top of the racial hierarchy,51 such distortions are almost beyond recognition, much less a mention. That is, the racial representations and ideological discourses that circulate work to privilege whiteness and position whites as out of reach when it comes to racial discourses that may distort them in any pervasive way. Instead, whites enjoy the power to craft discourses about racial others; this power has enabled them to cast others in unsavory ways while buffering or protecting themselves from similarly disparaging, damaging, and dangerous discourses. Because of the ways in which whiteness has been centered and (over) valued in society, it has been the most fiercely guarded and protected. This explains, in part, why opposition to interracial marriages between whites and people of color (broadly speaking) has been met with greater

44 | Making Multiracials Visible

resistance than marriages involving two nonwhite or not-­visibly-­white people. Ironically, because of the ways in which interracial relationships and families have been regarded and constructed over time, much more racial mixture exists within individuals and families than is often recognized, publicly or privately. This collective reticence to acknowledge racial mixture, especially a historical mixture that resulted primarily from coerced sex, sexual assault, or rape, makes multiracial people very visible (and curiously invisible) in families and society. The nation’s history of sexual exploitation muddies racial lines, making the mythology of racial purity contradictory, at best, and oppressive or deceptive, at worst. Next, I discuss national (historical and contemporary) patterns of race mixing in the United States.

Interracial Relationships in the United States: Then and Now Interestingly, the federal government collected data on interracial marriages before the ban on these unions was lifted. According to the US Census Bureau data on interracial married couples from 1960 to the then present (1999), interracial marriage, and, more specifically, unions involving a black husband and white wife, approximately doubled over each decade from 1960 to 1990; the number of unions involving a white husband and a black wife increased as well (with the exception of one decade) but at a considerably slower rate (see figure 1.2).52 In her work on black–­white interracial married couples, Heather Dalmage notes that, although these marriages are increasing, they continue to constitute a small percentage of total marriages.53 Dalmage introduces the concepts of “border patrolling” and “borderism” to largely explain why interracial marriages between blacks and whites are the “least common marriage 1960 25,000 Black Husbands/White Wives 26,000 White Husbands/Black Wives

1970 41,000 Black Husbands/White Wives 24,000 White Husbands/Black Wives

1980 94,000 Black Husbands/White Wives 27,000 White Husbands/Black Wives

Figure 1.2. Statistics on Black–­White Interracial Marriage Prior to 2000

1990 159,000 Black Husbands/White Wives 54,000 White Husbands/Black Wives

Making Multiracials Visible | 45

pattern for both blacks and whites.”54 She also discusses how the practice of border patrolling operates as a regulation of race. Borderism works to maintain a racially divisive society rather than a more cohesive one. The regulation of interracial romance, relationships, and marriages persists through this practice. Nevertheless, since the 1960s (and especially since the 1967 Loving decision), interracial marriages have been on the rise. In the past fifty years, interracial marriages of various racial combinations have grown,55 from just over 300,000 in 1970 to more than 2 million in 200856 to 5,818,722 between 2012 and 2016.57 Although there were about a quarter of a million interracial marriages before 2000, by 2000, about 10 percent (or 4,040,984) of the total number of married-­couple households (or 54,493,232) were reported as interracial or interethnic, and by 2010, there were a reported 5,369,035 interracial marriages reported in the United States.58 That is, among a total of 56,510,377 married-­couple households in 2010, one in seven were reported as interracial or interethnic (see table 1.1).59 While these numbers are considerably higher than, say, that of the 1960s (when the numbers were closer to 160,000 couples or people),60 overall, they constitute a small minority of marriages in contemporary American society. (See table 1.2).61

Table 1.1. Interracial Marriage in the United States, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 Census Year

1960

1970

1980

Percentage

Total Same-­ Race or Same-­ Hispanic-­Origin Couples

40,334,000 99.6 44,276,000 99.3 468,516,000 98.0 49,981,984 97.1

Total Interracial or Interethnic Couples

157,000

Source: US Bureau of the Census.

0.7

997,000

100

Number

40,491,000 100

321,000

49,514,000

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Number

Total Married-­ Couple Households

0.4

44,598,000 100

1990

2.0

51,475,834 100

1,493,725

2.9

46 | Making Multiracials Visible

Table 1.2. Interracial Marriage in the United States, 2000, 2010, and 2012–­16 2000

Year(s)

2010

2012–­16

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Total Married-­ Couple Households

54,493,232

100

56,510,377

100

56,781,405

100

Total Same-­Race or Same-­Hispanic-­ Origin Couples

50,452,248

92.6

51,141,342

90.5

50,962,683

89.8

Total Interracial or Interethnic Couples

4,040,984

7.4

5,369,035

9.5

5,818,722

10.2

Source: US Bureau of the Census.

Just five years later, that ratio of married-­couple households in the United States that was reported as interracial or interethnic had increased. “One-­in-­six U.S. newlyweds (17 percent) were married to a person of a different race or ethnicity in 2015, a more than fivefold increase from 3% in 1967.”62 About 10 percent (or 11 million) of all marriages in the United States are interracial ones. In 2015, about one-­third (29 percent) or nearly three in ten Asian newlyweds in America are married to someone of a different race or ethnicity; such was the case for 27 percent of Hispanic newlyweds. “Intermarriage for these groups was especially prevalent among the U.S. born: 39% of U.S.-­born Hispanics and almost half (46%) of U.S.-­born Asian newlyweds were intermarried in 2015.”63 Bialik observes, Although Asian and Hispanic newlyweds are most likely to be inter­ married, overall increases in intermarriage have been driven in part by rising intermarriage rates among black and white newlyweds. The most dramatic increase has occurred among black newlyweds, whose intermarriage rate more than tripled from 5% in 1980 to 18% in 2015. Among whites, the rate rose from 4% in 1980 to 11% in 2015. The next most common intermarriage pairings are one white and one Asian spouse (15%). Some 12% of newlywed intermarried couples include one white and one multiracial spouse, and 11% include one white and one black spouse.64

Making Multiracials Visible | 47

Whites and Latinxs form the most common coupling in interracial marriages, followed by White and Asian unions, white and multiracial marriages, and white and black marriages. In comparison to newlywed black men, newlywed black women are half as likely to be interracially married. Relatedly, we can observe similarly steady increases in interracial intimate partnerships involving unmarried people.65 By 2000, about one in five of the total number of unmarried couple households were reported to the Census as interracial or interethnic. “About 18% of opposite-­sex unmarried couples and 21% of same-­sex unmarried partners identify themselves as interracial.”66 In fact, scholars contend that despite the “28% increase in interracial or interethnic (heterosexual) married couples between 2000 and 2010 . . . the majority of people in interracial relationships are unmarried.”67

Gender and Race Variation in Interracial Intimacy Additional differences at the intersections of race and gender exist in patterns of intermarriage. That is, not all interracial marriages are created equal. Several scholars have also attended to the way “global (mixed) race” shapes identity,68 romance,69 and sexual relations.70 About the constant negotiations that white American women make with local men in Bahia, anthropologist Erica Williams writes, “The skepticism about ulterior motives that often underlies interracial liaisons and relationships—­particularly cross-­national ones—­has also been described in Cuba and the Dominican Republic.”71 Williams continues to discuss the different ways in which women are socially situated or positioned within these spaces. Other scholars engage in this discussion as well. In her work, Hordge-­ Freeman introduces the term “embodied capital,” or the currency of skin color and its impact on which individuals and/or groups are deemed desirable in the marriage market.72 The Color of Love reveals the prevalence and persistence of global anti-­blackness, as not only specifically situated within a Brazilian context but also a much broader one as well. Embodied capital rewards individuals in closer proximity to the racialized ideal while penalizing those further away from this white ideal. The racial hierarchy in this society and a similarly racialized hierarchy of desire that plays out in the mate selection process illustrate this point.

48 | Making Multiracials Visible

The racialized hierarchy of desire engages stereotypes at the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and more; this hierarchy upholds an idealized whiteness within this patriarchy.73 Consider some patterns observable in the data: most interracial marriages include a white person; intermarriage among Asians and Latinxs is increasingly common; outmarriage rates remain lowest for blacks but especially so among black women. Among the latter intermarriage pattern, black men partner with white women at twice the rate of black women marrying white men. That is, “newlywed black men are twice as likely as newlywed black women to be intermarried. In 2015, 24% of recently married black men were intermarried, compared with 12% of newly married black women. . . . Just over one-­third (36%) of newlywed Asian women were intermarried in 2015, compared with 21% of recently married Asian men. Among white and Hispanic newlyweds, intermarriage rates are similar for men and women.”74 The gender parity that one can observe among whites and Hispanic newlyweds may be attributed to the larger numbers of people in these groups. Scholars also point to the prevalence and persistence of stereotypes borne out of gendered racism; when expressed, these stereotypical views speak to the distorted images generated about some groups more than others.75 Patricia Hill Collins speaks of this in terms of controlling images, while Tyner and Houston prefer the term “controlling bodies.”76 The practice of controlling bodies can be traced back to slavery. In examining the genealogy of the criminalization and punishment of interracial relations that “emerged coterminously with the seventeenth-­century transition from white indentured servitude to African slavery,” researchers found the following: “The punishment of interracial relations is thus seen as a component of a specific ideology forwarded by elite white males to prevent the blurring of the races to maintain their social and material interests.”77 These scholars suggest that interracial relations reflect the complexities of racial ideologies surrounding such intimacy and the “combination of material factors and gendered assumptions” informing those relations.78 Their work invites further investigation of the ways in which “sex, love, race”79 are reflections and negotiations of power. So, too, is the social construction of race and the current racial classification system that has only just begun to more fully accommodate racial mixture.

Making Multiracials Visible | 49

Regulating Race and Romance: From Interracial to Multiracial Locating Multiracials in Interracial Relationships In the available Census data on interracial marriage, the social construction of race becomes apparent in terms of “who counts.” People who claim a singular race typically tend to be placed squarely within whatever racial group to which they make claims. These claims to a singular race suggest that such individuals are viewed as belonging to one and only one race rather than two or more races. By claiming one and only one race instead of other options, these individuals reproduce race and the idea of categorical race as static and coherent, as opposed to fluid and shape-­shifting. Generally, it is multiracial people who are viewed as belonging to two or more races, despite the historical mixture of the national population.80 As a result, data on interracial relationships reinforce—­rather than disrupt—­these common understandings. That is, race mixing appears as a relatively recent practice, something new rather than something foundational to this country. We can loop back to the Lovings as an example that guides historical and current inquiries about race, by posing the rhetorical questions: How was Mildred Loving classified in the Census then, and how might she be now?

In the Space Where Racial Identity Meets Romantic Relationships, Multiracials Dis/Appear When multiracial people appear in the available data on romantic relationships, their particular racial mixture gets muddied or generalized. As the public awaits completion and dissemination of information from the most recent administration of the Census—­given that a global pandemic disrupting the planned enumeration of the national population—­one can search earlier iterations of the survey for trends and patterns in the available data on race mixing on identity and relational levels. Take, for instance, the US Census Bureau’s presentation of information in “Appendix Table 1: Interracial/Interethnic Married Couple Households, 2010.” Rather than offering the same (or a similar) level of specificity as is available at the individual level, the Census presents more overgeneralized data, referring generally to multiracial members of a couple household. In this way, the specificity gets lost amid the generality.

50 | Making Multiracials Visible

While the Census 2010 presented information about interracial relationships involving individuals of “two or more races” and “some other race,” this was not the case in the 2000 Census. This omission speaks to the inconsistent ways in which multiracial people dis/appear in the data. Despite this, the Census (2010) data describe a pattern of greater interracial intimacy and relationships in the form of unmarried-­partner households in comparison to married-­couple households. According to the most recent data, “10 percent of opposite-­sex married couples had partners of a different race or Hispanic origin” (emphasis added).81 Elsewhere, the Census Bureau reports, “In 2010, almost 7 percent of married couple households included a householder and spouse of different races (Table 7). . . . Nationally, 4.3 percent of married couples had partners where one is Hispanic and the other is not of Hispanic origin, compared with 8.2 percent of opposite-­sex unmarried partners and 10.4 percent of same-­sex unmarried partners” (emphasis added). In the Census 2010, 90 percent of reported marriages did not involve individuals of reportedly different racial identities.82 These data tell a complicated story of the slow but steady change, from a legislative ban on interracial marriage to its eradication in 1967 to more and more people engaging in race mixing (even as the overall number remains noticeably low). That is, although the formal regulation of interracial relationships is no longer, an informal regulation remains. The relatively low number of interracial marriages, and the disproportionately high number of single-­race or same-­race marriages, suggests as much. Similar trends are observable among nonmarital interracial relationships. As we explore the proportion and number of total un/married interracial and/or interethnic couples in the United States as reported in the Census, we can begin to see some inconsistencies in the available data that prove potentially helpful in thinking through difference. Consider this: in two decades (1990–­2010), interracial married couples in the national population grew from 2.7 percent in 1990, to 7.4 percent in 2000, to 9.5 percent in 2010. Of those couples, 6.4 percent of them involved two people who both reported multiple races on the Census 2010 survey. However, the Census data offer little further delineation on the racial combinations of these individuals. These data indicate the reality that an increasing number of multiracial people, or people who reported multiple races, are gaining legibility in the national enumeration.

Making Multiracials Visible | 51

Certainly multiracial members of the population have captured the fascination of others, remaining a racialized spectacle regarding their hybrid “best of both worlds.” This fascination tends to flatten out the complex subjectivities of multiracial people, reducing them to spectacular stereotypes.83 Less concerted consideration has been given to understanding how members of the “two or more races” population opt for their preferred race identity (as an individual decision informed by/ informing of their relational and familial identities). Little serious attention has been directed at multiracial people as having a complexity of racial identities that sometimes cohere but often conflict or prove contradictory. Some research does meaningfully consider the many ways that people with multiple races develop their racial sense of selves, in part against the backdrop of this multiracial exoticism and eroticism. In my estimation, scholars have paid less attention to how multiracial people experience their racial identities individually and relationally, specific to their romantic relationships. In this book, I attempt to close this gap. What follows offers a review of the aforementioned racial identity options summarized in the literature. Next, I theorize how the Census might explore and capture the complexity of individual and relational identities. From there, what follows are visualizations where “multiracial” and “interracial” meet.

Multiracial Identity Options Understanding interracial intimacy and relationships involving multiracial people relates to the stability and fluidity of categorical race and people’s preferred racial identities independent of and in relation to their romantic partner(s). The meanings attached to race change over time and space, working to include some individuals at certain times and/ or exclude them at others. The parameters of racial groups or categories are perceived as fixed, but this is far from the case in people’s lived experiences. Consider the matrices of racial identity options available to people.84 It reflects how complicated racial mixture, given the more than sixty racial combinations that individuals report on the Census survey; the ways that those combinations multiply by the number of identity options that multiracial people choose to assert; and the various levels of legibility

52 | Making Multiracials Visible

of multiraciality. Needless to say, there are many different ways to be racially mixed or multiracial, and only one of those ways is to claim one-­ and-­only-­one race. With the “multiracial matrix”85 and “the multiracial experience”86 expands to also include being “clearly mixed,” “in/visibly mixed,” and/or experiences of “shifting mixture.”87 Being “clearly mixed” suggests that racially mixed people have an ambiguous appearance. This racial ambiguity means that for many of them, they can shift not only in and out of racial categories constitutive of their parentage and heritage but also beyond. Multiracial people who claim membership in multiple racial groups assert a protean identity;88 they can experience what I call shifting mixture. These social phenomena become infinitely messier given that some researchers suggest that (at least) sixty-­three possible racial combinations can be claimed.89 Shifting mixture becomes exponentially more complicated as calculations, if we allow for multiple expressions or iterations of multiple race backgrounds as preferred racial identities. Further still, honorary memberships and meaningful “race by proxy” identities add another layer to these equations.90 In the following section, I first revisit the literature on multiracial identity options and then present various visualizations to further illustrate the matrices of identity choices available to racially mixed individuals. The term multiracial has evolved in its meanings and expressions, allowing people with racially mixed parentage or heritage to claim any number of racial identity options, including singular, border, protean, and transcendent identities.91 Researchers have found evidence that people develop identity through social interactions, which can be self-­ affirming and/or invalidating in a variety of ways:92 Our data suggest some tentative descriptive categories for the ways that black/white multiracial people understand their biracialism: (a) a border identity, (b) a singular identity, (c) a protean identity, and/or (d) a transcendent identity. These categories of self-­understanding are not necessarily mutually exclusive; rather, they should be viewed as ideal types.93

Increasingly, even, racial mixture is understood as operating or existing on a continuum, as evidenced by the Continuum of Biracial Identity, or “the COBI model”:

Making Multiracials Visible | 53

[The model] suggests that mixed-­race people can locate themselves at any place along a blending continuum. . . . Mixed-­race people can locate themselves along this continuum and that location can change over their lifetime. In other words, among those who have one black and one white parent, we find people who identify as black, white, biracial, all of the above, and none of the above.94

These authors contend that mixed-­race people may choose singular identities, blended identities, and even transcendent identities, whereby they respectively choose to “racially self-­identify with only one of their birth parents,” choose along the continuum, or choose “none of the above” as a way to “opt out of the categorization game altogether.”95 Here is the continuum, reimagined as more of a map or (the aforementioned) matrix of racial identity options from which multiracials choose96 (see figure 1.3).

Chooses No Race

Chooses Two or More Races

Singular Identity

Chooses One Race

Protean Identity

Shifting Racial Self

Transcend ent Identity

Blended (Validated) Identity

Figure 1.3. Racial Mixture Matrices

Blended (Invalidated) Identity

54 | Making Multiracials Visible

Blended identity97 theoretically builds on the scholarship of Gloria Anzaldúa and her introduction of the term “border identity.” Scholars exploring hybridity in multiraciality contend: [It] is important to make a distinction between those who have a blended identity that appears to balance both black and white in equal ways versus those who define themselves as blended but who clearly emphasize either their blackness or their whiteness to a greater degree. In fact, most mixed-­race people tend to fall somewhere in the middle range of the continuum, understanding themselves as biracial, but leaning more in one direction versus the other.98

This and other research reminds us then that “multiracial” has many meanings. I argue here that people with racially mixed parentage, including, but also beyond, black and white, make a variety of choices about their racial identity. In drawing a sample of, and conducting qualitative interviews with, sixty multiracial people of various racial combinations,99 I observed patterns in people’s identity choices that exist along and beyond the continuum. In my research, I found evidence in support of the many multiracial racial identity options discussed earlier, including singular races (white, Asian, black, Native American, or Latinx), a blended identity with an emphasis on one race, or no race at all (a “transcendent” identity). Further still, some multiracial people display racial identities that are more of a “kaleidoscope,”100 with many different facets or multidimensionality of their multiraciality.101

Thin and Thick Racial Identities As an additional layer to the choices available in and beyond the continuum of biracial identity, some multiracial people may feel that certain parts of their racial parentage and identity are thick and others thin. Some racially mixed people may acknowledge the various parts of their parentage but feel that one part of their racial heritage is more salient (“thick/er”) than another (or others), which may be “thin/ner.”102

Making Multiracials Visible | 55

Some multiracial people acknowledge, for example, their white and Asian parentage but feel that their white identity is “thicker” than their “thinner” Asian identity. This may be the case because their respective Asian parent may themselves not always identify as Asian or have a “thick” Asian identity; as children, these multiracial people may not have been socialized to embrace, celebrate, or equally value their multiple parts to create a cohesive whole. In figures 1.4 and 1.5, I present two examples, one in which a multiracial person with white and Asian parentage experiences a thinning of their Asian identity and a thickening of their white identity (see ­figure 1.4) and one in which said multiracial person experiences a thickening Asian identity (see figure 1.5). These multiracials are likely to disidentify103 with multiraciality, perhaps acknowledging it nominally but not seeing it as a salient or central component of their preferred (white) racial identity.

“Becoming Multiracial”: Incipient (Multiracial) Identity Model Alternately, some multiracial people may begin by asserting singular or border identities and then develop incipient multiracial ones (see  figure 1.6). I call this process “becoming multiracial.” I use the

Multiracial

White

Asian

Figure 1.4. Thinning Multiracial and/or Asian Identity, Thickening White Identity Multiracial

Asian

Figure 1.5. Thinning White Identity, Thickening Asian Identity White or Asian

Multiracial

Figure 1.6. Thinning Singular or Border Identities, Thickening Multiracial Identity (“becoming multiracial” model)

56 | Making Multiracials Visible

term to describe multiracial people, mostly white and Asian or white and Latinx in parentage, who claim singular white or Asian and white or Latinx identities, respectively, but then experience shifting mixture. As they begin to develop incipient multiracial identities, they come to identify as multiracial (not simply with the theoretical notion of multiraciality). This shift enables them to more actively and intentionally embrace “multiracial” as a label that they see as one that fits their lived experience and sense of self.

“More Than Multiracial” Not only do multiracial people choose one and only one race (singular racial identity), two or more races (blended or border racial identity), shifting racial locations (protean identity), or no race at all (transcendent identity) and, with the exception of the transcendent identity, may see their composite parts in terms of “thin” and “thick” identities (see figure 1.7), but some also develop racial identities beyond the parameters of their parentage and heritage (see figure 1.8). Some multiracial people choose “more than multiracial” identities.104 That is, through the blending of racial and family structures, these individuals develop thick racial identities that move beyond the scope of their heritage. The powerful presence of caregivers and new people who enter their family shape and reshape their racial sense of self. Many multiracial people experience the blending of multiple borders, their own and those of their families. When their families blend structurally (e.g., through remarriage), multiracial children may experience a social environment that is more than the sum of their parts. That is, any new intimate romantic partner (and potential parent or stepparent) can inform how race is lived and understood by the members in that household and in the broader society. In the following example, I present a model of a multiracial person who has black and white parentage but becomes “more than multiracial” through her social ties to close family members. This process of becoming an “honorary” member of another racial group is facilitated by those filial connections (see figure 1.9). In this way, within interracial families, racial borders blend as a result of various intimate relationships and connections that further complicate racial multiplicity. These influences

Making Multiracials Visible | 57

Protean

Raceless

Blended

Border

Singular

Figure 1.7. Racial Identity Options Matrix

enrich racially mixed identities, in part by facilitating racial literacy and fluency of racial groups beyond one’s own parentage and heritage. These influences expand the boundaries of race. Honorary memberships often hide in plain sight, enabling multiracial people to cross racial borders beyond those of their parentage. These memberships suggest that the specific racial mixture of multiracial people may be unintelligible to some people or, at least, ambiguous enough to result in racial misclassification or misrecognition. While many multiracial people reject this misrecognition, others see this misrecognition as an affirmation of important social and family ties; they enjoy and embrace the honorary memberships that they are granted, seeing such memberships as a reflection of those very meaningful connections to family members with different individual racial identities than their own. Much like their racial mixture, these connections largely remain invisible to others (outsiders). Multiracial people are often engaging in work to make their racial mixture and blended borders visible to others.

58 | Making Multiracials Visible

Blended

Raceless

Protean

Singular

Honorary or "By Proxy" Membership

Thin or Thick

Some Other Race(s)

Figure 1.8. “More Than Multiracial” Model

As discussed earlier, the term multiracial has become increasingly multidimensional. People have worked to understand these nuances (partially in response to changes in the available options in the Census and in the national population). “Multiracial” has simultaneously enjoyed heightened visibility (to some people living in the United States) and increased (or sustained) invisibility (to still others living in the United States). The shifting visibility and invisibility of multiraciality

Making Multiracials Visible | 59

Black

Multiracial

White

"Honorary" Membership

Figure 1.9. Honorary Memberships

make seeing racial mixture, in individuals, relationships, families, communities, and societies that much harder to see. Sometimes, this difficulty in seeing relates to racial ideologies that oppose race mixing, as I explore in the next chapter. At other times, this difficulty in seeing pertains more to a matter of the un/intelligibility of mixture. Next, I discuss how (hidden) racial mixture at individual levels, as asserted through preferred racial identities, impact and inform how multiracial people potentially see their intimate romantic relationships.

Making Space for Multiracial Identities in Interracial Relationships, Mapping Racial Mixture at Individual and Relational Levels Individual and Relational Mixture in the National Population Earlier, I shared some survey data from the US Census Bureau and the Pew Research Center about interracial marriages. As a researcher who studies multiracial people and interracial relationships, I look at the data presented by these (and other) organizations and wonder, “Where have all the multiracial people gone?” That is, multiracial people who disappear their own racial multiplicity appear to be members of romantic relationships but not necessarily interracial ones. Thus, further complicating our understanding of interracial marriages is where multiracial

60 | Making Multiracials Visible

people fit. Statistics, like those listed previously, provide an incomplete picture of interracial intimacy. Referring to “multiracial people” as a unified group ignores important nuances that could paint a more elaborate picture of race mixing on individual and relational levels.

The Two or More Races Population, Blended and Brightened “Someone of a Different Race or Ethnicity” In referring to the available data from the Census earlier, I put an emphasis on difference to trouble some of the taken-­for-­granted notions about race. The language of racial difference suggests that there is a way to know who is (presumably biologically) different from us and who is not. That is, when we discuss the data on interracial relationships and look at the language of people partnering with someone of a different race, how are we to understand this notion of difference? This question brings the reference point for difference into sharp relief, as it begs consideration of how researchers measure the extent of contrast. Data collection on multiracial people in romantic relationships gets that much messier, when the question of difference is also regarded as socially constructed and negotiated, rather than taken as an a priori assumption. Rather than maintain this monoracism and the attendant myth of monoraciality, I focus squarely on multiracial people so as to not obscure the existing racially mixed population that has been hiding in plain sight since the inception of this country. Here, I encourage an interrogation of the language of difference, as it often works to disappear members of the multiracial population who, given their racial multiplicity, have a more complicated relationship with “difference.” This is arguably especially so in cases in which multiracial people have racial parentage that partially overlaps with that of their romantic partner or spouse. Scholarly attempts to quantitatively measure interracial relationships risk reifying race and reinforcing racial categories (and, more specifically, racial categories as social constructions of difference). Are such scholarly endeavors and investigative efforts asking people the impossible—­to accurately assess the amount of racial difference between themselves and others (especially their intimate romantic partners)?

Making Multiracials Visible | 61

Without specific questions about race and romance, it would be difficult to know this about the “two or more races” population, even while looking at the following statistics: For example, in 2000, almost 10 percent of all married couples were interracial (397,766), where “both spouses reported multiple races (both Hispanic or both non-­Hispanic).”105 By 2010, those numbers have declined, with only 6.45 percent (or 341,255) of all married couples, including two multiracial people. Beyond this, the particular racial combinations of these multiracial people are not provided. These details allow us to see multiracial people in the statistics on race and romance at individual and relational levels so that we can also see multiracial people as members of society with their own families of origin and/or families of their own pro/creation. However, we have little access to the differential impact of particular racial combinations on individual and relational levels. That is, we still miss much of the nuance among the national population as informed by who chooses “two or more races” and who does not. We also do not know the specificities of multiracial people who partner with other multiracial people—­are they the same in terms of racial combination? Do they assert the same preferred racial identities? When multiracial people partner with someone of another race, (how) is any shared racial group location accounted for? Additional layers of complexities stem from the experiences of shifting mixture and/or negotiations of in/visible mixture in their social worlds. That is, statistics on interracial marriages are inherently limited or flawed, fraught with the complicated racial logics of the then and now, and the competing tensions of assimilation and pluralism.

Theoretical Visualizations of “Someone of a Different Race” The following section offers a few examples to make less abstract the concept of difference as I discussed earlier. Let’s consider a concrete, if hypothetical, example. Two multiracial people partner. Like many multiracial people in interracial relationships, their racial mixture is invisible, hypervisible, or visible in ways that prove complicated. Is theirs an interracial one if and only if there are known racial differences in their respective parentage, visible differences in their physical appearances, or knowable differences in preferred racial identity? What if no

62 | Making Multiracials Visible

such known racial differences exist but each person claims a different racial identity? Consider an example that elucidates this conundrum: in the first scenario, they have a similar racial mixture (Asian and black), preferred identities (as Asian, black, multiracial, all of the above [protean], or none of the above [transcendent]), and physical appearances (racially ambiguous). See figure 1.10. Presenting an alternative to the first scenario, now consider this second scenario: two multiracial people have the same parentage (black and Asian), where one claims a singular racial identity (black) and the other claims a different singular racial identity (Asian; see ­figure 1.11). Further still, the former appears black, and the latter appears Asian. That is, their appearances are in congruity with their respective preferred racial identities. Amid the known racial similarities in parentage and the asserted differences in their preferred racial identities, is theirs an interracial relationship? What if the person who chooses the former (black) identity looks Asian and the partner, who looks black, chooses the latter (Asian) identity? (See figure 1.12.) Departing from the previous details a bit, let’s now imagine that the two multiracial people in a romantic relationship assert different racial combinations based on different racial parentage or heritage (such that one is black and Asian multiracial and the other is white and black

Multiracial Person with a Blended Identity

Interracial Relationship?

Multiracial Person with a Blended Identity

Figure 1.10. Same Difference Depicted, Invisibly Interracial Relationship

Making Multiracials Visible | 63

Singular BlackIdentified Multiracial Person

Interracial Relationship? Singular AsianIdentified Multiracial Person

Figure 1.11. Similar Parentage, Different Preferred Racial Identities Singular BlackIdentified Multiracial Person (Who Appears Asian)

Interracial Relationship? Similar Mixture, Different Appearances and Identities Singular AsianIdentified Multiracial Person (Who Appears Black)

Figure 1.12. Incongruity amid Ambiguity

multiracial). Because they both look brown (see figure 1.13), their relationship may be viewed as an implicitly homogamous or homogeneous relationship, rather than an interracial one. These figures illustrate a number of possibilities: similar racial mixture but different appearances and/or preferred racial identities; similar racial mixture, identities, and physical appearances; and similar physical appearances but different preferred racial identities and mixture. In many ways, the figures capture the sometimes shifting, sometimes hidden, or in/visible mixture.

64 | Making Multiracials Visible

Black and Asian Multiracial Person with Brown Skin

Interracial Relationship? Similar Appearance, Different Mixture White and Black Multiracial Person with Brown Skin

Figure 1.13. Similar Differences in Appearance and Identity

Disrupting the Language of Difference Consider that the Census reports that today, in contrast to considerably smaller proportions in prior decades, one in ten people are interracially married or in romantic relationships with “someone of a different race.”106 As noted earlier, this language of “someone of a different race” proves problematic for people of multiple races. Failure to accommodate “shades of gray,” blurred lines, or overlapping racial locations makes the insight here incomplete. Instead, let’s tend to the some of the omissions in the data and limitations in the language that disappears difference and impedes ways of seeing in/visible mixture. In the sociological literature, the social construction of race and racial difference is reinforced through language. Consider the following: “While three quarters of the population may say they approve of racial intermarriage, very few Americans actually intermarry. Only about 13 percent of U.S. marriages were between differently classified individuals in 2000, up from about 3 percent in 1990”107 (emphasis added). The contention that “very few Americans actually intermarry” proves both true and false. Despite historical and contemporary racial mixture in the national population, most people choose singular preferred racial identities. The choice of racial singularity should not mask racial multiplicity or multiraciality on the surface and/or at deeper levels, but it often does.

Making Multiracials Visible | 65

Thus, we arrive at a moment, created by revisionism and historical myopia, that advances this myth. It explains why a nation built on interracial sexual exploitation and violence108 continues to invest in the idea of racial singularity. Obscuring this foundational reality ignores multiraciality or racial multiplicity embedded in the nation at its inception and supports monoracism. This racial il/logic makes interracial marriage simultaneously easy and difficult to define and study.

Shifting Racial Identities and Racial Consciousness Shifting (Mixture) over Time and Space: A Look Back, a Look Ahead Changes in the racial categories available in the Census survey can amplify or alter the way people understand actual demographic changes in the national population with respect to race. That is, every administration of the Census survey has provided a slightly different set of available options from which to choose racial identification. The 1997 OMB decision to allow people to choose two or more races, as desired, meant that for the first time, the OMB would officially collect data on what it referred to as the “two or more races” population. The option to “choose all that apply” resulted in racially mixed people choosing from more than sixty possible racial options. These options include choosing “one and only one” race and/or two to six races. Notably, many of the people who selected two or more races in 2000 (the year people first had a chance to do so) could only formally select one race in 1990. (If they wrote in two or more races, they were ultimately collapsed back into one single category). This shift in categories, or, more formally, categorization of the national population, created a shift in the percentage of the population that fell out of single-­race categories (between 1990 and 2000), and fell into the “two or more races” group (in 2000). That is, a white and Asian multiracial person may have checked either white or Asian in the 1990 survey but may have checked both white and Asian in the 2000 survey (see table 1.3, line 1). This example illustrates what I call shifting mixture (see line 1 in table 1.3) and suggests that the same individual would be “differently classified” from themselves, not simply in relation to others (in the case of a romantic relationship). The same individual who chose an “Asian”

66 | Making Multiracials Visible

Table 1.3. Illustration of Changes in Formal Racial Identification (1990–­2010) Formal Racial Identification

Singular Race (Asian)

Two Races (White and Asian)

Singular Race (White)

Singular Race (White)

Singular Race (White)

Singular Race (White)

Singular Race (White)

Singular Race (White)

Singular Race (Asian)

Singular Race (Asian)

Singular Race (Asian)

Singular Race (Asian)

identity formally and was categorized as such in 1990 may have, by 2000, migrated into a multiracial classification, entering the “two or more races population” and effectively “becoming multiracial” (at least on paper). This occurs even though said individual has technically been multiracial all along. However, the limited availability of options in 1990 prevented this individual (and un/like others) from fully claiming their racial multiplicity or racially mixed heritage. Alternately, a racially mixed person may disidentify with the label “multiracial” instead “opting for white”109 (see line 2 in table 1.1). ­Furthermore, some multiracial (white and Asian) people may have grown up rejecting their whiteness or feeling that they cannot get away with whiteness. As a result, they may continue to identify as singularly Asian over time and space. Throughout the course of history, the racial identity options available to all individuals have arguably increased. One additional layer compounding the complexity of multiracial people in interracial relationships was foreshadowed earlier: hidden mixture.

Hidden Mixture: Multiracial People in Romantic Relationships Qualitative studies on interracial relationships often speak to the challenges people in different racial groups face when they form romantic relationships. For example, feminist sociological research points to the hazards of visibility for interracial couples that fall under a racialized gaze and mode of surveillance; members of interracial relationships, particularly those who look visibly different from one another, may encounter the force of racial regulation as a result of these romantic partner choices and unions.110 This surveillance and regulation occur, in part, because interracial couples are still atypical in this society:

Making Multiracials Visible | 67

Interracial unions are still relatively unusual in the United States, especially those between Blacks and Whites. This rarity holds both for same-­sex partnerships . . . and for heterosexual unions. Yet some of the challenges these couples face reflect racial realities that are quite common for many Americans. Racial segregation in many city and suburban neighborhoods forces interracial couples to either pursue a (sometimes elusive) racially mixed environment or choose between living in a majority-­White or majority-­Black area.111

Steinbugler helps us consider any additional challenges multiracial adults face in theoretically racially homogeneous spaces. Amid Steinbugler’s contention that interracial unions are not the norm (they constitute 10 percent of all marriages in the United States), she also speaks to the significance of interracial relationships. The invisibility and the lack of recognition of interracial intimacy among same-­sex interracial couples link to a related problem: the situational invisibility of racial mixture on individual and relational levels. Following Steinbugler then, we can see similar sorts of dynamics at play in those interracial relationships involving at least one person with racially mixed heritage. This situational visibility not only presents real and imagined problems for multiracial people in these relationships but also for researchers studying what effectively exists at times as “hidden mixture.” The final figure (figure 1.14) in this chapter illustrates the patterns and possibilities discussed throughout this chapter.

Conclusion Making multiracials visible entails new ways of looking, including the recognition of racial multiplicity that hides in plain sight. Sometimes, this mixture is invisible based on the appearances of multiracial individuals, and other times, it remains invisible because of the preferred racial identity choices asserted by said individuals. This chapter provided the groundwork for thinking about when multiracial people are visible in society and when their racially mixed heritage and parentage might be obscured, if not ignored. Revisiting the historically significant case of Loving v. The Commonwealth of Virginia opens new ways of seeing in/visible mixture.

Trends in Multiracial Partnered Self- and Relationship Identification Unpartnered Self-Identification

Partnered Self-Identification

Black

+

Relationship Identification

Black Homogeneous

+

+

+

Multiracial Interracial

Multiracial

+

Multiracial Homogeneous

Honorary White

+

White

+

Honorary White Homogeneous

White Homogeneous

Figure 1.14. Trends in Multiracial Individual and Relational Identity

Making Multiracials Visible | 69

Reconsidering the fact of Mildred Loving’s blackness presents the possibility of her as “more than black.” This possibility draws attention to questions that have only recently surfaced about her racial identity. Her involvement in this prolific case invites this revisiting and rereading of her racial locations, which shifted depending on who, where, and when you ask. Thinking about this shifting mixture also facilitates the recognition of multiraciality within interraciality. For multiracial people in interracial relationships, being part of the “two or more races” holds various meanings. Sometimes, the preferred racial identity of a multiracial person partially overlaps with that of their romantic partner. Sometimes, the appearance of a multiracial person closely approximates their partner, creating the illusion of a racially homogeneous couple. How people experience being multiracial and/or being in an interracial relationship remains contingent on how they understand themselves individually and how they understand their relationship and relational identity.

2

Contested Choices

The promises and pitfalls that people who claim a singular race experience when crossing color lines and choosing romantic partners have been amply explored.1 Less literature explicitly discusses how multiracial people, given their racially mixed parentage and heritage, negotiate this process.2 How multiracial adults experience their partner choice (in relation to their preferred racial identity and in a racially divisive society) often falls out of frame in discussions about romantic relationships. In this chapter, I discuss how multiracial people manage public social interactions with strangers. What are some of the ways in which multiracial people handle strangers’ reactions to them, their perceived race, and/or their partner choice(s)? How do multiracial people respond to others’ view of them as “crossing the color line”3 when they, in fact, are often crossing many color lines, further blending or blurring them as a result of their romantic partner choice(s)? I build on discussions of the positive and negative public reactions4 and/or support, supportive opposition, and opposition5 that strangers offer (or deny) multiracial people to affirm (or negate) multiracial people’s preferred racial identities. When affirmative, the positive reactions of strangers can be understood as supportive behavior that fits within the frame of benevolent border patrolling; when strangers publicly oppose or contest the racial identities and/or partner choices of multiracial people, they engage in what I call malevolent border patrolling.6 At the intersection of preferred racial identity and partner choice, border patrolling becomes more complex. Because people who racially border patrol multiracial people often misperceive or misread these individuals, they may, in turn, also regulate these individuals’ partner choice(s). They do so on the basis of a misreading, seeing multiracial people in ways that contrast with their (the multiracial people’s) preferred racial identity. This misreading also typically occurs because 70

Contested Choices | 71

strangers have few details about, or lack intimate familiarity with, the racial parentage and/or heritage of the respective multiracial people. Some strangers base their border patrolling behavior on (mis)perceptions of multiracial people and their presumed attendant racial identity. They make their own assessments or judgments about the identities and partner choices of multiracial individuals. Often, they disregard how said multiracial individuals label themselves or understand their own racial identities and interracial relationships. In analyzing the narratives of multiracial individuals, I found that strangers often police partner choice in relation to their perception (misidentification) of the racial identities of multiracial people. This behavior illustrates the regulation of race and romance, on individual and relational levels.7 That is, sometimes strangers try to racially decode multiracial individuals by considering their romantic partners.8 This strategy is often faulty for a number of reasons. A presumption exists that, within a romantic partnership, the racial identity of one person clarifies that of the other. This is not always the case. While some research increasingly shows how life in interracial families does shape and reshape racial identities,9 others contend that racial identities remain intact irrespective of romantic relationship(s).10 In the former case, the process of “becoming” or experiencing any racial fluidity typically takes time. Having vested interests in creating strong social ties and heightening intimacy in interracial relationships may reshape or recalibrate how people understand themselves racially. Developing such intimacy typically translates into greater racial literacy among its members.11 However, not all interracial intimacy results in enhanced literacy, nor does it inevitably generate racial fluidity of identity. More recent research offers evidence that people expressly maintain (as opposed to “losing” or “thinning”) their racial identity in their interracial relationships.12 People often rely on the romantic partner of a multiracial person to offer clarification of that person’s racial identity and location.13 A racially ambiguous person partnered with someone who looks black might likely be coded as black by association or by proxy. A racially ambiguous person who has a white or light skin color and partners with a white person might likely be coded as white by association or by proxy. Such a (multiracial) person (with white or light skin) may be seen as passing,

72 | Contested Choices

or being “forced to pass.”14 They may be seen as “white-­adjacent,” or already in such close proximity to whiteness; having a white partner putatively brings them even closer to the center of whiteness. All my respondents had to have been in a relationship for at least six months (to meet participation criteria); however, not all their relationships were the same. Some relationships were in more fledgling stages, while others had been legalized through marriage. While my respondents reported being in different kinds of meaningful relationships, the length of time that they maintained these relationships differed. And arguably, conceptually in any case, “length of time” in a relationship may indicate a lot about what people in a relationship know about one another, how much they understand about each other’s racial realities, and how much, over time, they begin to approximate or become like their partner or attendant family members. In this way, a six-­month relationship may not compare to the depth of connection that results from truly building a life together over decades, despite both relationships being meaningful to the respective individuals, couples, and families. This is not to diminish the significance of each relationship that respondents reported but to suggest that the strength of social ties and depth of intimacy has the potential to ideally intensify over time (and, conversely, to dwindle over time in less mutually satisfying relationships and/or among less compatible couples). Thus, when strangers look to a person’s partner (say, of six months) to inform their perceptions of another person’s race or racial location, that perception can be quite misleading. Furthermore, such perceptions rely on the assumption or presumption of racial alliances and build on the statistical reality that the two people in any given romantic couple will racially identify more similarly than not.15 Stated differently, a person who relies on their perceptions of one person’s race in any given relationship can easily presume that the partner’s race will be similar given the relatively small number of interracial relationships in this country (despite steadily increasing numbers that might suggest otherwise). In the face of any uncertainty, strangers employ various strategies to decode multiracial people given the appearance of ambiguity and ubiquity that many multiracial people possess. The very ambiguity and ubiquity of multiracial people, and any discontinuity between them and their respective romantic partners, may also buffer some

Contested Choices | 73

multiracial people from others’ questions and contestations; this is particularly so if the ambiguity allows a multiracial person to racially approximate their partner, pass as their partner’s race, or un/intentionally pass into their partner’s racial group. This racial decoding happens this way, at least in this country, because of the racialization of families here, now, and throughout history.16 While an increasing number of families in the United States are racially mixed or interracial, the vast majority remains racially homogeneous (or make such claims).17 Thus, it makes some sense that people presume racial likeness or similarity when they glance at any given couple. There exists an implicit expectation of what I call “requisite racial resemblance”: family members are expected to look alike or, at least, more alike than not. Members of interracial families often break with this expectation. Sometimes, members of such families resemble one another, but as often, they do not. In fact, interracial couples and families have largely been understood as not resembling each other. For multiracial members of interracial families, racial resemblances remain relatively elusive. Some phenotypic similarities or continuities exist, especially among immediate family members, but visible differences in skin color can mask these continuities. Interracial families whose members do not appear phenotypically very different may not have much experience with others regulating race and romance with them. When they approximate one another closely, family members can effectively buffer themselves from much of the adverse attention and regulation reportedly experienced by visibly mixed-­ race families. Alternately, members of interracial families who appear starkly different from one another, in terms of race and physical appearance, may find themselves managing racial borders, and any attendant regulation thereof, quite often. Some people engage in the process of attempting to decode the racial parentage and/or heritage of a multiracial person. They may be especially inclined to do so with racially ambiguous multiracial people. Because so many multiracial people live in the borderlands and on the fault lines of race, they often do not resemble any or all members of their families.18 They might, however, choose romantic partners and build families that appear to meet the requisite racial resemblance expectation.

74 | Contested Choices

For racially mixed individuals and families, the requisite racial resemblance can prove an impossible challenge. There is the potential for incongruity among identity, appearance, and others’ perception of multiracial individuals in interracial couples. The incongruity exposes how visibly different members of a couple might racially identify similarly and do not consider themselves in an “interracial” relationship. Such incongruity also includes the possibility that two individuals with similar phenotypes or physical appearances may choose to assert different preferred racial identities, even as they are perceived to be similar. Furthermore, they may claim group membership in the same racial group(s) as one another or have some shared racial heritage, even as they assert different racial identities. Having a physical appearance (external) that complements one’s racial identity (internal) and others’ perception of that racial identity (external) creates congruence.19 This congruence is preferred as it alleviates any anxiety provoked by racial ambiguity, and/or any discontinuity among how a person identifies, the way a person appears, and how others interpret that appearance or those looks. Any discontinuity between those variables can rupture others’ expectations. This rupture typically requires resolution for social interactions to resume normalcy. In this way, congruence can also diffuse any social discomfort surrounding the disjuncture of racial phenotype, identity, and social location.

“Are You Two Siblings?” Strangers who depend primarily on phenotype or physical appearance to inform these interactions sometimes end up confronting this incongruence. Because most people prefer congruence between physical appearance and racial identity, the absence of this congruence can provoke a range of responses. Individuals with any incongruence can generate others’ curiosity. Interest in resolving incongruity is expressed verbally through border patrolling racial discourses and nonverbally through “eye questions.”20 Eye questions convey not only inquisition but also skepticism or suspicion. They are part of a racialized gaze that puts people’s racial identity and romantic partner choices under inspection. As a practice, racial regulation from others relies heavily on the visibility of racial markers in multiracial people. While this regulation can

Contested Choices | 75

intensify the scrutiny that visible interracial couples feel, invisible mixture can alleviate some of this attention: The categorization of multiracial individuals is often difficult because of the ambiguity in their racial appearance. Precisely because of this ambiguity, multiracial individuals are frequently bombarded with the question, “What are you?” often coupled with responses such as, “Really? You don’t look it,” or “Are you sure?” (Root and Kelley, 2003). This pattern of suspended disbelief points toward social perceivers’ discomfort with this ambiguity, which may stem from a persistent overreliance on discrete categories in organizing their world.21

When both members of a couple look ambiguous enough to provoke public anxieties about race mixing, racial border patrolling and the impulse to regulate racial identity and romance can intensify in the presence of visible racial difference (the appearance of an “interracial” couple). Racially blurring boundaries in this way usually provokes a plethora of people’s public and private anxieties. Because many multiracial people blur the borders of their racial identity (by virtue of their multiracial birth and through their often liminal racial location) and through their partner choice (although often without notice), they often face a regulation of race, racial identity, and their romantic partner choices from strangers uneasy with this crossing of color lines. In other instances, racial ambiguity buffers some couples from others’ border patrolling behavior because of the couple’s undetected/able racial differences (a different matter of invisibility). Most often, this experience entails being (mis)read as siblings rather than as a couple. Consider the experience of Sandy, a white and Asian multiracial woman. Sandy shared that, since she and her partner both have brown skin, strangers read them as biologically related rather than as the romantic partners they are to each other: “People think we’re brother and sister.” This illustrates the extent to which racial resemblance informs individuals’ sense of family—­it underscores the idea that biological ties require racial resemblance—­while negating the chosen family of Sandy and others like her who have similar experiences. Racial regulation of racial resemblance of this kind effectively “uncouples” multiracial people from their respective romantic partners through a refusal or failure to read romantic

76 | Contested Choices

partners as such. Refusals reflect malevolent border patrolling, while failure reflects benevolent border patrolling. “Uncoupling” can also be understood as a variation of “visual dislocation.”22 Visual dislocation arises when others do not register interracial couples or families as such; instead, people presume these family members are strangers or casual acquaintances to one another. Steinbugler describes visual dislocation as a process that reinforces the notion that interracial family members do not belong together. As such, they are not recognized as relatives, and by extension, they may be viewed as “beyond loving” (rather than a normative part of society). For Sandy and other “clearly mixed” multiracial people in in/visibly mixed relationships, a variation of visual dislocation is occurring. Even though she is viewed as being related to her partner, the two are viewed through the wrong lens, which sours their experience, since they are not siblings but romantic partners. These experiences can also compound feelings of invisibility and invalidation for multiracial individuals struggling for affirmation of their preferred racial identity and their interracial relationship. When romantic partners physically approximated one another, they often risked having their racial identity and/or intimate relationship being misread (or being misrecognized as siblings). Alternately, some respondents reported the converse: being “coupled” with family members, including siblings. Consider Rachel’s experience. In her relationship with a white man, Rachel (a white and Native American multiracial woman) sensed that others perceived her as singularly white. Theirs was an implicitly white relationship and received little public attention. Curiously, however, when Rachel and her brother hung out together in public, strangers erroneously viewed them as romantically involved (a view that prompted this understandable reaction from Rachel: “‘Ew.’”) Kim had similar experiences about being in public with her partner. An Asian and white respondent with a preferred Asian American identity, Kim also shared stories of being misread when with her “half white, half Mexican” boyfriend. Because the two physically approximate one another (both look “beige” and she self-­reportedly looks Hispanic), Kim notes, “People think that we’re brother and sister. Girls will hit on him with me standing right there until he comes over and kisses me.”23 He often clarifies, “This is my girlfriend.” Visual dislocation necessitates this

Contested Choices | 77

clarification, which accompanies shifting and invisible mixture, as well as any racial and ethnic ambiguity in people in romantic relationships. Being misread as siblings involves one ostensible “benefit” for the couple: a decline in adverse or oppositional reactions. The couple encounters less visual dislocation24 or other “hazards of visibility.”25 “People that see us don’t realize that one’s Asian and one’s Hispanic and then, so there’s not much of one [a reaction].” Arguably, despite appearing racially ambiguous or “clearly mixed,” the couple’s relational invisible mixture buffers them from more oppositional reactions. Kim’s comments partially reveal the ways in which categorical concepts like “Asian” and “Hispanic” have so much variation contained and concealed within them. That her heritage is Filipino, for instance, suggests that she could approximate her Hispanic partner, given the histories of colonization, and race mixing, in both places and populations (Filipinos and Hispanics).26 Their approximation speaks to these historical and contemporary divergences and convergences, the many migrations of people, and the prevalence of mixing that remains. Any similarities in Kim’s appearance to her partner speak to those convergences and hint at how they may be replicated through the reproduction of race.27 Both in public and private, among strangers and significant others, Kim feels this way: “We’re pretty much accepted. I mean, um, there’s a lot of diversity on both sides of our family, so people that know us crack the joke that there’s gonna be nothing left. That we’re just one big melting pot but other than that, no one reacts.” Her comment suggests that the diversity is so rich and robust that it will likely continue to grow and expand as her family tree does. (Theoretically, no more racial groups will be left excluded as her family already includes members of all racial categories.) I wonder if she would feel similarly were her appearance more clearly contrasting that of her long-­term partner. I also wonder if her location in categorical honorary whiteness were to somehow shift to collective blackness, if her racial consciousness about her experience would shift accordingly as well. In being perceived as similar enough to be siblings, multiracial people and their romantic partners can avoid being visually dislocated from one another (albeit at the risk of misrecognition of their relationship). Their similar physical appearance masks any differences in their racial

78 | Contested Choices

and ethnic backgrounds, thereby creating an implicitly racially homogeneous or “monoracial” relationship. Paradoxically, as multiracial people embody blurred racial boundaries, their romantic relationships further blur those boundaries, or “crossing the color line.”28 At once, actually, multiracial people in interracial relationships cross many color lines. In appearing ostensibly “monoracial,” these couples circumvent the aforementioned hazards of visibility, or any attendant risks or dangers provoked by visible racial differences within a couple.29 Invisible mixture may allow members of an interracial couple to mask any differences in their racial identities and parentage. For instance, this might mean that an implicitly white multiracial person in partnership with a singularly white person might be buffered from visual dislocation, if others perceive the couple as white. Alternately, two multiracial members of the same racial combination (e.g., white and black) may appear to be of two different racial groups rather than both known racial groups of their parentage. When considered together, a lighter-­skinned (implicitly white) multiracial person partnered with a darker-­skinned (implicitly black) multiracial person may be misread as members of an interracial couple. This hypothetical scenario begs the question, Is the multiracial couple “interracial” because they are both white and black, or are they so because they look like an interracial couple? As previously explored, the space exists for such a couple to be considered an interracial couple (1) if they both identify as the same singular race, whether white or black; (2) if they both assert multiracial identities (unless their “same difference” cancels itself out, making theirs a “singularly mixed” or “similarly mixed” relationship); and/or (3) if the preferred racial identities of the couple do (not) “match.”

You’re Cute So . . . “You’d Make Cute Babies” When not mistaken as siblings, many multiracial respondents were told (sometimes before strangers could learn of any children the respective multiracial people parent) that they “would make cute babies” who were predicted to have “great hair” and/or a “pretty complexion.” Strangers provided these positively problematic and prescient thoughts to racially mixed people, maybe in the hopes of making a love connection. Their

Contested Choices | 79

comments elicited a variety of responses, including that of Tracy, a black and Asian Filipina. She observed, “I’m positive about it [my reaction to these compliments] because I’m like, ‘Yeah, I want my baby to have pretty hair. I want my baby to look good.’ I want them to get married, too. I mean, if anyone was like, ‘Y’all gonna have some ugly babies,’ I’d be like, “Well, sucks for us. What can we do about it?!’” Rather than critically unpack and examine these comments—­or see them as “racist compliments”30—­Tracy welcomed them. Her embrace of them effectively endorses troublesome tropes of exceptional multiraciality. This works (problematically) to exalt multiracial people, thereby maintaining their privileged position within society. Tracy participates in a discourse that endorses the “best of both worlds” cliché, expresses her hopeful anticipation of the privileged position her imagined children might enjoy (particularly given her partnership to a white man), and explicitly conveys her awareness of how racial privileges operate as a currency in this society, a pigmentocracy.31 That Tracy imagines the children she does not yet have being (positively) affected by their physical attractiveness (and positively affected by physical attractiveness she is sure that they will possess as long as they are multiracial), she speaks to the extent to which she understands the “beauty queue,”32 how it operates for multiracials in the marriage market,33 and, more broadly, how race operates as a currency and a liability. The beauty queue signals the aforementioned pigmentocracy, as beauty currency accrues or accumulates in women perceived as beautiful. The beauty ideal is largely Westernized, with lighter and whiter features valued or overvalued in US society: Skin color and features associated with whites, such as light skin, straight noses, and long, straight hair, take on the meanings that they represent: civility, rationality, and beauty. Similarly, skin colors and features associated with Africans or Indians, such as dark skin, broad notes, and kinky hair, represent savagery, irrationality, and ugliness. The values associated with physical features set the stage for skin color stratification.34

The commodification of bodies translates into different currents and assigned different values in a capitalist society. In a racial hierarchy informed by “white body supremacy,”35 whiteness and lightness are

80 | Contested Choices

(over)valued, whereas blackness and darkness are devalued and stigmatized. People located within or closer to categorical whiteness generally earn and enjoy the most “embodied capital,”36 while those located within or closer to categorical blackness often incur penalties for their dark(er) skin color. The beauty ideal, beauty queue, and embodied capital all inform how multiracial people, and multiracial women in particular, scholars argue, are (de)valued. The ideal, the queue, and the capital are different expressions of globalized (yet nation-­based) gendered racism.37 When put into conversation with other respondents’ comments, Tracy’s show how race and gender intersect to inform these and other women’s experiences and discourses to varying degrees. For example, whereas Jessica, a black-­identified (black and Asian Indian) multiracial woman, drew attention away from “attractiveness” as a way of performing politeness in our interview and in her everyday life, Tracy talks directly about her awareness of physical appearance and the value of perceived beauty. That she links her hypothetical children’s success to marriage, on the basis of their appearance, underscores how much she manages this in her own life. It highlights how central these messages are and the extent to which they circulate and inform people’s sense of self and the social world. Notably, Tracy offers some of the more candid commentary throughout our interview conversation when compared to the more colorblind38 and colormute39 stances other respondents take. Already a multiracial parent,40 Maritza mentioned fielding impossible questions from male strangers. Some men would ask variations of this question, “Would you have my baby?” Their own imagined ambitions for fathering a child with her interfered with their ability to even inquire about her (romantic) availability and her own set of desires; this behavior works to objectify, fetishize, and dehumanize her, just like many other multiracial women imagined not just as this idealized product of interracial sexual intimacy but now, in adulthood, the quintessential reproducers of idealized (multiracial) children as well. At once, both (real and/or imagined) mother and child/ren are idealized, objectified, fetishized, and ultimately dehumanized for their racial mixture. That is, in Maritza’s experience, she speculatively saw that the men were imagining (or perhaps hopefully anticipating) having a “beautiful multiracial baby” with her. That Maritza already had birthed a son into the world

Contested Choices | 81

without them seemed nary a care or concern to them. Speculatively, these male strangers also had a “taste for brown sugar,”41 seeing Maritza as a representation of sexual seduction rather than respecting her as a human being. Notably, even in their own imagination, the men presumably neglect to fully celebrate the role (albeit imagined in these cases) their own race plays in creating “beautiful multiracial” children. This practice lends evidence to theories about the pervasiveness of internalized racism. Here, my point serves as an intervention (by highlighting that much racial mixture results from and includes blackness, in contemporary and historical contexts), building on past declaratives (“black is beautiful”) that recognize blackness as beauty, that embrace all that is beautiful about blackness, and that do not work to make “blackness” and “beauty” mutually exclusive. This intervention restores that order rather than maintaining blackness and beauty as imagined “opposites.” For Maritza, the question of motherhood was not speculative but definitive. As the black Hispanic Panamanian mother to a black Hispanic Panamanian Japanese baby, Maritza hears different variations of the “biracial beauty” herself and in relation to her child. About the latter, she gets told, “‘Oh, he’s such a cute baby. He must be mixed’ [emphasis theirs according to her]. Yeah, they always ask what he’s mixed with.” (Indeed, as a multiracial parent, Maritza is among many individuals who have given birth to an always already mixed child42 [who is seen as always already beautiful, because of that persistent trope]. How that child chooses to identify enriches our understanding from there.) While superficially complimentary, comments like those mentioned earlier rely on and reinforce a racial hierarchy that valorizes whiteness and lightness,43 perpetuate colorism and divisiveness among various communities and colors,44 and cement the connections between beauty and currency.45 The circulation of these compliments illustrates how myths and racial ideologies of hyper-­beautiful racial mixture carry over from one generation to another.46 Similar to Maritza, Alicia, a black–­white multiracial woman, enjoys membership in an interracial family of her own (the biological family she was born into and the one she created for herself through marriage and birth). In contrast to Maritza, whose invisible mixture as black and

82 | Contested Choices

Panamanian encourages others to see her as “just black,”47 Alicia has difficulty asserting an uncontested black identity. That is, people more readily see Maritza, but not Alicia, as black. In fact, Alicia feels her visibly mixed family “gives her mixture away.” As a result, she has a harder time claiming a singular black identity, the same singular blackness that Maritza presumably possesses (and experiences as an imposition largely because she wants to identify her whole racialized self, not simply one of the parts of her known heritage). Alicia finds eliding the racialized gaze and avoiding being a racialized and gendered spectacle a challenge given her family’s racial composition and their visible mixture. When in public with her family, Alicia finds her appearance becomes a point of interest for others who might otherwise overlook her racial ambiguity (when she is in public on her own). Some strangers strategically use her family as an “excuse” to politely and pointedly investigate and explore her racial ambiguity; people rely on or refer to the family’s visible multiraciality as a vehicle for fueling conversation about Alicia and her racial identity. Alicia’s experience helps us understand Maritza’s experience more. In a way that departs from how Alicia experiences it, Maritza encounters many men who may have been hoping that she, colloquially speaking, “gives her mixture away.” Encouraged to follow the rules of racial etiquette, people navigate racial borders rhetorically and skillfully. They make inquiries about multiracial families, maneuvering through questions that express interest in the racial identities of said family members. These questions also often mark an early start at border patrolling, benevolently or otherwise. These questions might be graciously accommodated and answered or resisted when unsolicited and unwanted. Strangers can manage to attain the desired information by framing their questions as though they pertain to Alicia’s children (socially acceptable) instead of her (less socially acceptable for its intrusiveness): A lot of them persist, and then I’ll tell them, but if they don’t really dig, I don’t say anything. And like my children, they know that something’s different, especially when they see pictures of the family, like my great grandfather. And of course, people, they see their dad as black, but other children, other people don’t see him as black. . . . In Florida, it was “Puerto Rican”; in Georgia, it was “black and white.”48

Contested Choices | 83

Although she and her husband share similar racial mixture (black and white parentage), they are read in different ways as a result of their racial ambiguity. They are real-­life versions of Danzy Senna’s literary characters Rachel and Hewitt, the implicitly interracial couple. Alicia and her husband encounter resistance as others racially regulate them individually and/or relationally; they get racially border patrolled on the basis of other’s (mis)perceptions of them. Ironically, the couple’s racial mixture might mean that they do see themselves as an interracial couple, since both Alicia and her husband have racially mixed backgrounds that they account for through this terminology. At once, they share similar differences—­similar, in terms of racial mixture in their parentage or heritage, and different, in terms of their physical appearance and skin color. As a result of these “similar differences,” others see Alicia and her husband’s racial mixture somewhat differently. That is, others perceive them as belonging to different racial and ethnic groups, rather than having overlapping racial locations and group memberships. To Alicia’s points, she may be read as mixed or multiracial, while her husband is read as Latino (Puerto Rican) or multiracial (black and white). This suggests that their relationship can be read as interracial (multiracial and Latino). Alternately, theirs can be read as interracial because both Alicia and her husband are multiracial. Their shifting, situationally in/visible mixture makes the legibility of this quality of their relationship hard to read at times. Recognizing theirs as an interracial relationship also accommodates any changes in their respective preferred racial identities (as one shifts to or between any of the racial identity options available, including a singular, border, blended, protean, or transcendent racial identity). Finally, like other respondents, Alicia finds her race, preferred racial identity, and her relationship regulated by others. This regulation occurs through others’ reactions and their perception of her and her husband as different. Others’ perceptions of her, her identity, and her relationship contrast with how she sees herself and her relationship. Notably, no respondents mentioned receiving compliments specifically from other interracial couples or multiracial people (but perhaps they were not perceived as such or similarly were misidentified as many of the respondents were). While consistent with the general trend toward colorblind rhetoric among the respondents, this omission does not tell us much about how individuals with multiracial parentage and

84 | Contested Choices

heritage interact with and are benevolently border patrolled by others with similar racial parentage or heritage. Perhaps many of these individuals (multiracial strangers) know the anxiety of deciphering public attention, preferring instead to respectfully divert attention away from other multiracial people and interracial couples. They would do this as an empathic gesture, or so as not to fetishize or objectify them, presumably from a place of having experienced some sort of racialized surveillance themselves. Multiracial people negotiate invisible mixture to varying degrees. In public, they may appear to be the siblings of their romantic partners, so closely approximating similarities in physical appearance that any differences in racial and ethnic heritage get cloaked or concealed. When this “same difference”49 emerges in more obvious ways, when multiracial people are more “clearly mixed,” people’s benevolence, expressed through questions and curiosity, can shift. I turn next to discuss this shift from benevolence to malevolence.

“What Is This White Girl Doing with This Black Guy? That’s So Dangerous. She’s Going to Hurt Herself.” Many people remain resistant to and unsupportive of interracial couples.50 This aversion or hostility may be felt for particular race and gender configurations of couples, or to the idea of race mixing more generally, for others and themselves. Arguably, for multiracial people with in/visible mixture, they may experience support, opposition, or some combination of both,51 as strangers make sense of their individual racial identity and partner choice(s). Some respondents gestured toward “racial battle fatigue”52 and expressed frustration regarding the racialized attention53 they experienced in being under constant surveillance (or the “constancy of the looks and stares”54). Leilani, a black Hawaiian multiracial woman, expressed these sentiments, pointing to the ways that people racially inspected her; she spoke about how her consistent visibility to others (i.e., being read as “different”) exhausted her. An aforementioned example of this surveillance can come in the form of stares, which can be supportive but are usually more scrutinizing.

Contested Choices | 85

In describing her current long-­term relationship with her black boyfriend, Leilani contrasted the nonchalant response of school peers with the more obvious and oppositional reactions from strangers. When Leilani and her boyfriend are in public, holding hands, “[p]eople stare because they think . . . they’re just looking at this ‘white girl’ with this black guy. And they’re just like, ‘That’s just wrong!’ . . . Once I heard a [black] woman . . . talking to her [black] friend. She saw us together . . . and she was like, ‘Oh, hell no! There goes another one down the drain!’” The irony here is that Leilani, who asserts a protean identity (black, Hawaiian, and multiracial) with a black emphasis,55 experiences an abundance of racial regulation. Others who see her as implicitly white malevolently border patrol her, because they believe that she is and/ or should not be racially border crossing into blackness, relationally speaking. Doing so jeopardizes her ostensible white purity. Employing the logic of borderism and homophilous, homogeneous relationships, some black women reportedly (mis)interpret Leilani as “stealing another black guy” from black women. They do not see Leilani as one of them—­a black woman. However, Leilani, who situates herself within and between categorical blackness, sees herself as black. Having a shared or overlapping identity with her black boyfriend destabilizes the view of her relationship with a black man as “thievery”; identifying as black or multiracial black renders that view relatively impossible. The troublesome accusation, while understandable in its historical significance, nevertheless proves problematic. The view denies Leilani space to claim her preferred (black) racial identity and to inhabit her romantic relationship without the scrutiny of a racialized gaze (and one that misreads her, nonetheless). Historically, white women have made men of color—­and black men specifically—­vulnerable.56 For Leilani, being viewed as implicitly white puts her romantic partner, a black man, at risk when racial borders are expected to stay intact, not crossed or blurred. Leilani likely lamented her (implicitly white) body’s potential for provocation of attention that ensured some protection (of her) and some risk of violence (to him) in instances where strangers incorrectly perceive (and hostilely engage) the couple as an “interracial” couple instead of a black one. This provocation speaks to a history that accounts for the vulnerability and danger black

86 | Contested Choices

men faced when in public with white women or women who appear white. Resolving the incongruence in the situation means that Leilani (and others in similar situations) must reveal to malevolent racial border patrollers that she is not white and that she is not exactly in an “interracial” relationship. In effect, she could ask, “Who do you think you’re border patrolling?” since she is being patrolled as the white person she does not identify with or as; in addition to experiencing border patrolling from this angle, she also experiences invalidation resulting from the incongruence between her identity and appearance. Our societal tendency toward an overreliance on physical markers (skin color and hair texture) constructs Leilani as white, and people border patrol her racial identity and romantic relationship accordingly. Were she to be perceived as she identifies, the border patrolling that she (and her boyfriend) faces for being together would significantly dissipate, since the anxieties around double minorities and/or collective blacks partnering with one another57 remain negligible in comparison to that around more traditional interracial intimacy. Facing or anticipating this public opposition means that Leilani is aware of how different groups of people patrol her, individually or relationally, depending on the geographical location of social settings she inhabits. She notes, I get about the same reaction in a predominantly white or black setting, because if we were to go into a black area [or establishment], people would be trippin’ thinking that a white girl was trying to steal another one of their men, and if we were to go to a white area (or establishment), they would just think, “What is this white girl doing with this black guy? That’s so dangerous. She’s going to hurt herself.”

Leilani highlights how people keep “tripping on the color line.”58 They base their regulation of her race and relationships on the misperception of her as white and believe she will experience harm for theoretically “crossing” the color line. They do not appear to reflect on why a white-­ looking woman would face such harm (for being in relationship with a black man) in the first place. Leilani talks about her anticipation of strangers’ racial animosity and resistance in this way:

Contested Choices | 87

At the beginning of our relationship, I was—­whenever we would go out, I would just get myself ready for the stares, so that I wouldn’t get angry and want to hit somebody. But now I’m just like, I really don’t care what anybody else thinks. You don’t do anything for me, and me worrying about what you think isn’t going to help me reach my goals in life, so I just really ignore it now. . . . Before we go out to the mall, because you know you see a lot of people at the mall—­before I was just like, “Go ahead and get ready, Leilani, because you already know it’s at least going to be one person, if not many, that’s going to be staring at you all, giving you all looks, so just ignore it. Don’t even get angry. Just calm down now.”

In contrast to the more benevolent stares other respondents describe as an expression of curiosity or intrigue, Leilani suggests the stares she receives from strangers are far more hostile. When juxtaposed against stares (which may be rude and imposing), Leilani encounters glares (as more hostile, penetrating, judging); they reflect intentions to racially regulate her. That is, these experiences with strangers who racially border patrol her, her racial identity, and/or her partner choice(s) signal their desire to restore the racial order, to maintain racial singularity (not multiplicity), and to prohibit racial border crossing. Leilani’s in/visible mixture (individually and relationally) complicates others’ reading of race, as it relates to her, her partner, and the two in their togetherness. In the earlier quote, Leilani points out the price for being misread as an interracial couple in the public sphere. Her comments speak to the emotion work59 that she engages in (as she anticipates and then manages people’s reactions to her), as well as that which border patrollers perform. Given how imperative many people feel presenting themselves as racially neutral, if not antiracist, ideologically or in practice, people policing Leilani and others in real or ostensible interracial relationships must maintain the colorblind myth of support for such relationships. That is, her very experience of being stared at, whispered about, and otherwise scrutinized undermines some people’s front-­stage performance of race, race neutrality, and support of interracial relationships. The reality of real and imagined hostility that Leilani and others face points to the level of discomfort that some strangers feel about interracial intimacy; her comments interrupt or betray the belief that Americans are increasingly accepting of interracial relationships. Scholars

88 | Contested Choices

note this disjuncture between racial attitudes and behaviors.60 Instead, her experience exposed others’ opposition, as expressed through the variety of behavior that she interprets as policing, and that makes her feel like she is “supposed to be in a museum somewhere. Like it’s just so spectacular to be looking at me and my boyfriend together, holding hands.” Similar to Leilani, Alicia reported on the public reactions to her identity and “interracial” marriage. Both she and her husband, who shares a similar (white and black biracial) parentage, appear ambiguous to others. They experience what I call shifting mixture, as strangers perceive them as belonging to a number of different racial and ethnic groups; they face the regulation of race and romance as a result. Alicia explained: In Florida, it was uncomfortable because a lot of Puerto Ricans think that Puerto Ricans should date only with their race. So, of course people would see us out together, and kind of stare at him, not realizing he wasn’t Puerto Rican. We would get stares. And then I would get stares from different females. And then I would get stares from black men, like, “Why is she with that white man?” I’ve actually had a couple ask me that.

Strangers see her husband as implicitly white (since “his hair isn’t curly. It’s straight. If it grows out to length, it gets curly. But it’s flat on his head”). As a result of these physical characteristics and expectations of ethnoracial solidarity and pride, Puerto Ricans claim him as Puerto Rican, while black people claim her as black. Alicia’s comments suggest that Puerto Ricans racialized this ethnicity as such rather than also seeing the extent to which it is always already racially mixed.61 Strangers demonstrate their investment in hegemonic notions of family and race when they ask, “What are you two doing with each other?” Questions like this also show not only how racial regulation operates but also how the geography of race impacts how people of the same racial combination (here, black and white) get read differently depending on their location in relation to racially varying demographics. Alicia’s experience illustrates this: what looks like a single-­race couple in one place becomes interracial in another and/or what gets accommodated or accepted in one place may get opposed and rejected elsewhere. This

Contested Choices | 89

underscores the flexibility that exists in individual and relational identities, in the varying perceptions of individuals independently, and in the context of their intimate romantic relationships.62 Depending on local, regional, and national histories then, the shift in race created a rift for people perceiving couples such as Alicia and her husband as interracial, given the level of opposition to interracial intimacy in any given area: It was all black and maybe the classes there were different and maybe that’s why I don’t experience it where I am but when we first moved here, we lived in that house for a year, and people, we would ride through the neighborhood, we would get stares. . . . And somebody pulled their gun out and was like, “White people don’t belong over here.” Oh, it was awful. But which was funny because my white friend, Brandi, stayed with us, and nobody said anything to her. But even when he [Alicia’s husband] was by himself, people would make comments or they would stand in the road and not move out the way when they see him coming, like, “I run this street and you don’t.”

This example illustrates many dynamics, including the kind of territorial protection of property, loosely defined. As an expression of patriarchy and racialized marginal masculinity, the black man described earlier defends what he sees as “his” at all costs. Seeing a (albeit implicitly) white man as a threat to black bodies and geographies, the black man neighbor accommodates whiteness in womanhood while staunchly protecting black womanhood. When broadened out, his actions are consistent with anyone else who engages in similar behaviors designed to defend and protect racial (and other) borders. Sometimes, and sadly, malevolent border patrolling facilitates the maintenance of (and even exacerbates) existing racial divides. In the next and final section of this chapter, I explore another pattern that I observed in my study, that of darker-­skinned multiracial people who did notice the way that race shaped their romantic partner interests and choices. In contrast to most of their lighter-­skinned multiracial counterparts, they more purposefully attended to the inclusionary and exclusionary patterns in the mate selection process and the presence or absence of certain racial group members within their romantic careers.

90 | Contested Choices

The Unbearable Darkness of Being? How Colorism (and Skin Color) Impact Romantic Interests and Partner Choices In reflecting on their experiences, many respondents in my study openly questioned some of the racialized interactions they had; they attempted to find reasons for the feelings (or suspicions) that they had that race mattered more in particular moments than people cared to admit in this colorblind society. Their “felt intuition”63 helped them navigate (the regulation of) race and romance with strangers. This felt intuition is a kind of critical speculative knowledge, a way of knowing on the basis of indeterminate or unseen evidence. James, a black-­identified man with Native American ancestry, provided one of the clearest examples of this concept, sharing how he relied on his felt intuition in his search for a partner with whom to form an intimate romantic relationship and partner. Consider his comments here: Interracial dating . . . that’s something that I’m pretty open to but I’ve been in situations where a female of another race might not be comfortable with that—­or I would get that feeling. . . . Well, you have to ask the question, “Do they not necessarily like you [me] in that way? Is it that they don’t, because you’re specifically black, or is it just interracial dating as a whole?” These are the things that, to some degree, sometimes we may be fortunate enough to have that conversation, but oftentimes people will not divulge all of their reasons because they may not be comfortable in doing so.

James’s comment that he has a “feeling” suggests that he partially relies on his intuition to navigate potential and/or actual interracial relationships. When he feels regulated (and rejected) by women of races different than those he claims, he asks himself a series of questions, trying to determine if their dislike is personal or if the disinterest is racial (or racist). He astutely notes the dominant discourses of colorblindness and colormuteness; he sounds genuinely pleased when people do discuss their disinterest in him in a candid way. That is, James does not delight in the rejection but rather appreciates the honesty and sincerity someone expresses if and when disinterested in dating him because of his dark

Contested Choices | 91

skin color. That he values this honesty should not suggest that he is not injured by these words but that he prefers such honesty over the insincerity of polite racism. As racial socialization is powerful in encouraging or discouraging people to cross color lines, James realizes that a sensible way of dealing with that reality and those powerful messages is to discuss them openly and honestly. Some respondents, including Abigail, a black-­identified woman with Native American ancestry, noted how pointed people’s comments were when they opposed dating her: “Ah, I can remember a white guy, blonde, who said, if it wasn’t for my race, that he’d date me.” In contrast to James, who appreciated the frankness of others, Abigail reported feeling injured by this man’s admission. How is a person to feel if they are told their phenotypic appearance or racial group location renders them undesirable to some people? The impact of these words underscores the injuries incurred in a racist society and in the process of mate selection. Allison, a biracial-­identified black–­white woman, agreed: White dudes have never, ever stepped to me. . . . My brother’s white, and he was telling me, “White dudes know they don’t have a chance with brown girls.” I’d be like, “Really?” That’s what he says [that white men are intimidated by that] but I think he’s kind of—­How accurate is that, to hear it from him? He’s from an interracial family. But, you know, I would be interested to hear from the typical white guy, from a run-­of-­the-­mill white family, why he wouldn’t be interested in me. I think it’s because, what I found, um, guys, white guys my age, aren’t interested in me. White guys that are like thirty-­five to forty, they’ve married that blonde hair, blue-­eyed skinny woman, that they were chasing when they were my age, they’ve been with her for seven years, and now they look at me, they look at me with kind of a curiosity.

Allison’s comments draw attention to the way she becomes a racialized spectacle, fetishized by middle-­aged white men. Being seen as the “exotic other”64 threatens Allison’s humanity and reduces her to an ostensibly interesting object perceived to be designed for the enjoyment of older white men. Their approach reminds her of the role she plays in their imagination, but her awareness recuperates her agency to reject serving them in this (or any) way. Other multiracial women spoke to this

92 | Contested Choices

spectacle and their experiences confronting others’ stereotypical views and controlling images of them. Julie, a black-­identified woman with Native American ancestry, shared this: Well, I don’t have a problem dating someone of another race but I am not aggressive towards men so I wait to be approached and the only white man who’s approached me asked me if I wanted to go do a line of cocaine . . . in the bathroom. Yeah, it was weird. I could be a “Narc” or undercover cop and he asked me that. Well, but he prefaced it with, “When was the last time you dated a white guy?” And we had this conversation or whatever. And I was like, “Never.” And I asked, “When was the last time you dated a black girl?” and he was like, “And she was really black. She was really dark.” As if to say, the darker her skin, the more black she was. Then he went into the whole . . . it was so weird. . . . But just to say, “I just broke up with somebody black” is one thing but to say that she was really black is another. So it just depends. But I don’t normally get approached by white men.

Rather than be approached in a complimentary way (i.e., for being considered attractive, interesting, fun, etc.), Julie reports being approached as a potential drug user. While she does not say it directly, Julie implies that she gets coded not only as different but also as deviant because of her darker skin color. In the preceding example, we see that some white men make assumptions about her character, cementing or advancing the association of blacks with illicit drugs, deviance, and criminality. The consequent conversation, about “real blackness,”65 dissuaded Julie from entertaining the man’s advances, since he also expressed fetishism of other dark-­skinned women. Based on her accounts, Julie was turned off by his expression of fetishism, not his whiteness. Any misinterpretation of the situation could lead to the false conclusion that differences in race or racial location, rather than differences in racial ideologies, account for their incompatibility or refusal to pursue a romantic relationship. By contrast, Jessica noted how infrequently white men approached her: Everyone’s attracted to me, outside of white people. . . . I’ve never really been in a situation where—­but see, then again, it comes down to exposure, too. I haven’t really been exposed to many white people. I’m just

Contested Choices | 93

now, you know, kind of exposing myself to races outside of black and Indian. So I would say, usually, the looks I usually notice are Mexicans and black people. That’s it really. . . . I always notice that Mexicans are always hooting and hollering at me, and that’s it. And black people.

Jessica’s point highlights her mixed-­race habitus; she is accustomed to black and Indian people, and people of color more generally, but not so much white people. Were she habituated to white people and implicitly to their behavior, ideologies, and norms, Jessica might also notice or welcome any admiring looks of white men. She likely imagines that they are not offering her those looks, or she more readily recognizes the admiring looks from men she is habituated to notice noticing her. In this way, Jessica recognizes men she is accustomed to seeing as potential partners, thereby ignoring, overlooking, or neglecting to see others (white men) as equally potential in the “pool of eligibles.” The failure to recognize white men as potential partners reflects Jessica’s lack of familiarity and comfort with them, as well as what she suggests is their general disinterest in her romantically. Perhaps one positive gesture from a white man might open up the “potential partner” possibility. Nevertheless, Jessica’s contentment with her current partner forecloses or at least minimizes her response to any romanticized attention from anyone else. Within the parameters of a monogamous relationship, this theoretically excludes everyone else, irrespective of race.66 Other multiracial women respondents echoed Jessica’s narrative. Consider Juanita’s (a black, Puerto Rican, Creole multiracial woman) observations: It’s interesting to me though that usually white guys, even if I might be thinking, “Okay, you know, I could go out with you,” but they’ll never go any further than, “What’s your name?” or “Can I walk you to your car?” or something like that. It’s like it can only go so far, and I don’t know why that happens. . . . I really don’t know. I’ve thought about it and I’ve asked friends but I don’t know. I could say, you know, because I’m a person of color, but then [I wonder], “Why did he approach me in the first place?” . . . It’s like, “I think you’re cute. I’d like to take you out.” And then it’s like, “Cut!” (hand gestures to signal an abrupt ending, as in “End Scene.”). (Emphasis in original).

94 | Contested Choices

Juanita registers (or imagines) an almost imperceptible line. This line prevents potential people of particular racial groups from pursuing her further, romantically speaking. This line might be intensified by or simply in alignment with the color lines, since Juanita notes this experience occurs only with white men. The line is not visible but seems fixed: for some—­forbidden to cross, for others—­a potential temptation (as related to the exoticization of multiracial women in particular). For the previously discussed respondents (all of whom are black-­ identified with the exception of Allison, who claims more of a multiracial identity), being border patrolled malevolently means facing racial regulation primarily from white people. Whether they were open to the idea of dating whites remained irrelevant to the degree that potential white partners had eliminated themselves from the pool of romantic possibility. Alternately stated, white people might have actually never considered romantic relationships with these respondents. For whites, intentionally refusing a relationship with anyone except other white people illustrates the possessive investment in whiteness, a nefarious reproduction of race and a protection of racial privilege. The experiences multiracial respondents with known black ancestry shared reinforce racial divides, especially a black/white one. As their experiences illustrate, multiracial people are likely placed among collective blacks and, consequently, in “the friend zone” by prospective white partners who “prefer” not to romantically partner with them (because of any racial ambiguity and/or darker skin color).67 The language of “preference” here speaks volumes about people’s prejudicial thoughts and the behaviors that stem from those thoughts. The language of preference (1) obscures the (adverse) impact of implicit bias on both the individual with such views and the targets of said biases and (2) facilitates the perpetuation of racist ideologies as veiled by, but situated within, the context of choice. Based on this logic, in a democracy, everyone should have the right, and the freedom, to choose their romantic partner(s) based on their preferences. Media and popular culture perpetuate or enable the ideologies embedded in the language of preference. For example, in 2006, Something New was released, starring Sanaa Lathan as Kenya McQueen, a black woman professional searching for “the one.” McQueen has an impossible set of criteria for any prospects and thus must revisit and reflect on

Contested Choices | 95

that when a Jewish white woman colleague sets her up on a blind date with Brian Kelly (played by Simon Baker).68 Kenya is surprised to discover that Brian is white, and she struggles visibly but also presumably internally, in part, because of her bias. Her incipient interest in and attraction to him likely surprises her yet creates such cognitive dissonance that she immediately rejects the possibility, letting Brian down by clarifying that she would “prefer to date black men.” That the expression “It’s a preference, not a prejudice” shows up in this movie speaks to the way black people also toe the line between both (preferences and prejudices).69 The depiction of Kenya also advances the idea of individual racism as ubiquitous. It gestures at Kenya, as if to say, “See, black people can be racist, too.” And more specifically, it suggests that black people can be racist against whites, a point typically dismissed as illogical, given the historically persistent power asymmetries embedded in society and evidenced by structural racism.70 As a departure from the aforementioned film and in stark contrast to the notion that they were racist against whites, most of the darker-­ skinned women in my sample did not ultimately enter into intimate romantic relationships with white men. In fact, most of the multiracial (black and white) women in my sample noted that white men seemed the most resistant or unwilling to see them as potentials in the pool of eligible romantic partners. Several of the women respondents of this racial combination echoed variations of this theme: they were not the “preference” of white men; they were not chosen as intimate romantic partners by white men. While many of these women remained receptive to interracial intimacy, with some expressing interest in romantic relationships with specific white men (social peers), the others felt otherwise. On average, these white men neither shared nor reciprocated this interest. It is difficult to discern if these men lacked romantic interest (unrequited love) or any attendant desire for developing interracial intimacy or if they expressed any interest in problematic ways (i.e., with too much of a desire for interracial intimacy/fetishizing multiracial women and thereby making them uncomfortable or disinterested). Men in the latter category often expressed their desire as a fetish (per Allison’s earlier comments about being a “curiosity” as opposed to more relatable, romantic expressions).

96 | Contested Choices

Juanita narrates very similar experiences earlier, and her point here is well taken. As she senses some initial interest from white men, she also anticipates that things will only “go so far.” She relies on her felt intuition to gauge the potentiality of a romantic partnership. Together, these comments suggest that, when it comes to dating, white men are reluctant to cross the line with multiracial women. That line may be both romantic and racialized. At the intersection of race and romance, these multiracial women and white men seldom see each other as suitable, desirable options. This view, particularly among the dominant group, forecloses the possibility of them even approaching multiracial women with known black parentage, much less forming long-­term, sustained romantic relationships with one another. If multiracial respondents (with black and white parentage) are viewed through the binary racial logic of “not white, then black” or more generally as “just black”71 rather than “beyond black,”72 they are experiencing a pattern typified in the United States and reproduced through the “one-­drop rule.”73 Although “the share of recently married blacks with a spouse of a different race or ethnicity has more than tripled, from 5% in 1980 to 18% in 2015,” sizable gender gaps exist.74 That is, black women are much less likely to have a spouse of a different race or ethnicity than black men.75 Furthermore, marriage between black women and white men is the least likely form of interracial intimacy than other racial and gender combinations in romantic relationships.76 Only 4 percent of black women married white men.77 But who is included in and excluded from the very categories of blackness and whiteness in the data given the historical mixture present in the population and the contemporary mixture chosen by some but denied by others? Seldom do people interrogate what “black” and “white” mean in categorical terms, how these individuals identify, or what the individuals classified accordingly or characterized by those labels actually look like. Like many of my respondents, multiracial people may be (re)located into racial groups and categories that they do not always claim for themselves. If and when multiracial (black and white) women are viewed as members of the collective black category, they are likely to experience the social world similarly to black-­identified black women. As a result of being viewed as black and at the intersections of race and gender, multiracial

Contested Choices | 97

women with known (and visible) black ancestry experience similar patterns of racial border patrolling that many black women report.78 On the basis of gendered racism, and largely because of the racialized and gendered stereotypes that circulate to control human behavior, we can observe unsavory images of black womanhood. These disparaging depictions and distortions work to communicate which group members are ideal and which are less than ideal. These controlling images play an important role in which romantic partners people find desirable or even believe to be an enviable partner. Another side of this equation relates to the racial ideologies that position or reposition people of two or more races into one and only one race. In addition, the racial ideologies that guide people’s partner choices reflect thoughts and ideas shaped by and reflective of the racial hierarchy. Since whiteness is privileged and overvalued in this hierarchy, whites are often believed to be the most coveted romantic partner possible.79 As members of the dominant group, heterosexual white men “risk” losing their social status at the top of the (racial and gender) hierarchy if and when they partner with a woman of color. This view obscures the many ways in which women of color enhance the lives of whites, without recognition. Instead, women of color are largely framed as a liability rather than a currency. As a putative “burden to bear,” women of color come at a “cost” to white men, who may or may not hold racist ideologies themselves, often claim colorblind perspectives, and yet remain acutely aware of how romantic partnerships have important implications on their lives. This reality prompts them to sometimes make incredibly careful considerations when it comes to choosing a partner. Because of racialized and gendered power asymmetries created and maintained within a racist patriarchy,80 white men are often viewed as the ones doing the choosing, the ones with the most authority to make such decisions. Notably, this view ignores the empowered stance of many women of color. It overlooks any agency they employ in their own search for healthy, satisfying relationships with racially literate and loving partners. Because dominant discourses in the United States always already presume both black inferiority and white excellence, such ideologies support white supremacy and the contemporary racial hierarchy.81

98 | Contested Choices

However, competing ideologies exist to resist such racist il/logic, with contemporary efforts being made that name and highlight black excellence. Despite these efforts and counternarratives, the dominant narrative and ideologies persist, which partially explains people’s behaviors when it comes to whom they select as a romantic partner. Crossing color lines when choosing a romantic partner does not always signal the absence of problematic racial ideologies but perhaps a negotiation or management of them. Consider the frustration that some of the multiracial women in my sample reported. In their own way, their own words, they lamented their invisible mixture (as opposed to their racial mixture); they wished that their mixture were more legible or discernible to others, including potential romantic partners. Some spoke to the way they felt that the invisibility of their mixture meant a potentially smaller pool of eligibles. Many of the respondents attributed this pattern to the normative practice of racial homogamy and homogeny, seeing their invisible mixture as, at least, a partial explanation for the fewer choices they felt were available to them. As people primarily partner with someone quite similar to them in a number of ways (including but not limited to race), some multiracial respondents remained aware of how their physical appearance, skin color, and even body shape and size impacted the kinds of individuals who expressed attraction to them. This was especially true for many of the women in my study, who maintained an awareness of how much power dynamics were at play in perceptions of them. They understood that perceptions of beauty are racialized and gendered and influence the formation of romantic relationships. How others perceived them shaped who asked them out on dates (or not), articulated romantic (or other forms of) interest in them, and how they pursued them (or not). What is “just right” for one person or potential partner is “not quite right” for another; these evaluations are informed by a racial hierarchy that values whiteness and lightness over darkness. Tracy, a black and Asian multiracial woman, navigates social life as someone likely seen as singularly black when viewed through a racially dichotomous (white/black) lens. Her current boyfriend, a young white man, had previously dated a black woman, thus getting stigmatized for this emergent pattern of interracial dating. People reportedly teased him by asking, “Why don’t you ever date people of your own culture?” Such

Contested Choices | 99

pointed inquiries illustrate the regulation of race and romance by exposing the normative expectation that people “should” partner with racially “like others.” Strangers’ questioning of the choices people make within their own romantic careers signals the continuing significance of race and racism.82 The decisions made within a racial hierarchy and around racial identity and partner choice shape the everyday lives of people but arguably more so those who cross racial borders and/or live on the borders of race.83 In general, Tracy is also not consistently seen as multiracial, a view that mitigates the identity and partner choices afforded her within the current racial hierarchy. While she is free to choose, she must manage any tensions or repercussions of her choices. Depending on how others view her, they may accommodate more or fewer options, contingent on their own levels of support or opposition to racial border blending and on the flawed racial logics that limit or delimit romantic partner choices. So many respondents show how the regulation of race and romance remains. Tracy (unsuccessfully) demonstrates how inconsequential race is to her everyday life. The contours of color blindness allow Tracy to point out that, at their church, they are “the only interracial couple . . . out of 50 couples” while wondering, “Why is everybody looking at us?!” (emphasis added). In contrast to her usual race-­evasive posture, she had an awareness of “the guts” that interracial relationships require. She also seemed especially appreciative of the compliments the couple receives (“So cute together”), finding them “pretty confirming.” She observed that, once people saw that they were happily together, they realized, “[We’re] pretty much here to stay. Yeah, might as well give in and say, ‘I like it.’” Despite her lightheartedness and humor, Tracy relied on her “felt intuition” as a strategic survival skill in situations that provoked her suspicions or distrust in others (who seemed falsely or overly nice or who made grand gestures of inclusion). Because some people may try to publicly mask their privately held opposition to interracial intimacy, Tracy had to develop the ability to detect sincere allies and supportive community from skeptics and critics of her and her interracial relationship. Tracy shared, “A while back, this old lady in church, she kind of was like, ‘I really like you two. I wouldn’t mind having you come over

100 | Contested Choices

for dinner. We have a couples’ dinner.’ We were just like, ‘Really?! I’m not going to get shot, am I? This is not a setup, is it?’ You know, she kept pushing me and I was like, ‘Okay.’” In describing how dubious she was of the older white woman’s invitation to dinner, Tracy admitted, “Had I gotten it from the colored [sic] family, it’d be like, ‘Okay.’ But not the old white family.” Tracy’s historically anachronistic use of language (“colored”), coupled with her real and imagined fear of harm, reflects broader and more particularly (geographically) specific histories of violence. That Tracy anticipates or imagines physical violence (murder) while participating in linguistic violence (through use of offensive terminology) herself speaks to the ways multiracial people can participate in, and fall prey to, dangerous discourses. In naming her fears (her concerns about being killed) while using this problematic term, Tracy becomes the discursive embodiment of her own fears (as she adopts the language of her oppressor). That is, amid the whitespaces of her everyday life,84 Tracy curiously adopted some of the historically anachronistic vernacular (“colored”). This suggests she has internalized racism to some degree or, at a minimum, has adopted oppressive elements of English-­language and racial articulations. Tracy’s comments speak to this quote: “The master’s tools will not dismantle the master’s house.”85 Even as she anticipates and fears “race talk,”86 or racially antagonistic or malevolent injurious speech87 from others (particularly elderly white women), Tracy advances it all the same herself. She creates a contradiction: as a multiracial woman, she proves vulnerable to expressed individual racism, along with potential microaggressions88 and physical aggressions from others; however, she also becomes a person who relies on race talk in everyday conversations in her own life, even as she fears such “excitable speech” from others.89 Tracy also spoke about how contemporary racial logic affected her identity and partner choice. She explained that, because people frequently see her as “just black,” they expect her to partner with someone similarly black: “I guess, even now, I’m expected to date someone that’s black. I think just because most black guys, they’ll have a girl that’s my complexion dating them. You know, I’m supposed to be dating a dark black guy. I’m not supposed to go back a few shades” (someone lighter than her). Her comments illustrate the way particular race and gender

Contested Choices | 101

configurations establish different expectations of identity and partner choice. That women are seen as “culture keepers”90 and are also policed differently than men, it is not surprising that she observes these patterns. The imposition of “race matching,”91 or forming racially homogeneous relationships (that look monoracial), remains the requisite order of the day. For multiracial people, race matching reminded them that the composite parts of their complex identities were not always visible and important to others working toward reproducing race and protecting the parameters of racial groups. Racial border patrollers do not always regard this racial multiplicity as important but, rather, focus on policing the apparent or presumed identities of multiracial people and their partner choices. Both multiracial identities and interracial relationships signal the crossing of color lines or the blending of racial boundaries. While Tracy was seldom seen as “clearly mixed,” other respondents, including Campbell, were. As someone who looked “white with a tan,” Campbell enjoyed the privileges of that kind of invisible mixture. As a black and white biracial woman with a multiracial child of her own, Campbell publicly negotiated multiple layers to others’ regulation of her racial identity, family, and romantic partner choice. On one hand, she doubted anyone ever read her relationships as “interracial” or that people thought, “‘What is he doing with that white girl?’” On the other, she still encountered racial border patrolling. People puzzled over the relationships between family members of different complexions (and sexual identities as well), wondering aloud at times, “Oh, who’s dating who? Who’s the mom of whom?” In sorting out “Who’s with whom?” in Campbell’s families, strangers, engaged in malevolent border patrolling, attempted this race matching to sort out who belong to/with whom. The presence of racial ambiguity frustrates many malevolent border patrollers. Because they police racial borders, they falsely believe that the black adopted son of a white couple (Campbell’s coach and partner) was Campbell’s boyfriend’s son, because both boyfriend and son are black. Campbell recalled that one waiter once complimented her, “‘Oh, your son is so cute.’” Her coach, the adoptive mother, clarified, “‘No, that’s my child.’ So everyone goes, ‘Hmm.’” People consistently visually dislocate the white adoptive mother from her black adopted child, presuming that the two are not family, that they do not fit together.92 Negotiating the ties that bind often means

102 | Contested Choices

untangling race and adoption.93 Similarly, many writers have attempted similar projects, working to make sense of and managing racial politics as they shape and impact the family unit, as well as individual members of families. When with her immediate and extended family, Campbell must not only negotiate racial border patrollers but also any homophobia expressed in relation to her white mother’s partnership with another woman. At these intersections of borderism, heterosexism, and homophobia, not saying anything may prove to be the most effective strategy for Campbell’s families. “[F]or both heterosexual and queer interracial couples, public recognition risks harassment or violence.”94 She notes that visibility operates as a fundamental form of heterosexual privilege, arguing that “Carbado’s list of privileges may not hold true for heterosexual interracial couples,”95 I argue here that visibly mixed interracial couples may lack this privilege but that couples who are interracial but do not look it are often protected by this privilege. Interracial couples are frequently “visually dislocated” from one another (when others assume the couple is unrelated).96 Campbell’s narrative captures the concept of visual dislocation but with a slight variation. While others may read her family of orientation and procreation as related, they generally border patrol along racial lines and possibly do not even register same-­sex couples as such. The racial and sexual diversity in her family compounds the visual dislocation visited on her and her family members. This issue of invisibility can be regarded as a double-­edged sword, potentially operating as protection, but also as invalidation or negation. In the former case, invisibility offers up a buffer from questions, and in the latter case, invisibility entails a failure of recognition, experienced as a refusal to be seen. For multiracial members of interracial families, managing invisible mixture remains race work reflected in their everyday realities in the borderlands.

Conclusion Interestingly, even though I interviewed a number of people of various racial combinations, most of my respondents reported the most regulation of race and romance by people they perceived as singularly white

Contested Choices | 103

or black. That multiracial people often see others through a lens that allows “one and only one” racial group, and as those individuals attempt to maintain the borders of race at both individual and relational levels, speaks to the persistent divisiveness of race that sustains a white/black binary in some ways. More specifically, it also speaks to a sustained white/black racial hierarchy in the South, where many people mostly still see social life through a white/black lens. For multiracial individuals, negotiating identity and partner choice with strangers remains a social space where validation and/or invalidation can take place. Without intimate details, strangers must resolve “seemingly contradictory categories”97 and otherwise make sense of racial multiplicity, ambiguity, and fluidity as represented by multiracial people and their partners. While these interactions are sometimes positive and, at other times, negative, they often shape the racial sense of self that multiracial individuals develop.

3

Ironic Interactions

In this chapter, I look at how multiracial participants in my sample manage their parents’ responses to their romantic partner choice(s). These responses are shaped by parents’ perception of their respective multiracial child(ren) and their racial identity. However, one thing made clear in my discussions with respondents is that a gap often exists between self-­and parental perceptions. That is, many respondents asserted their preferred racial identity but noted that their parents’ understanding of them racially diverged from their self-­understanding. In turn, this gap informed any imagined and idealized romantic partners parents had in mind for their (now-­adult) children. As the multiracial respondents moved into adulthood, growing increasingly independent and autonomous about decisions, they made choices likely informed by parents’ perceptions and preferences for them regarding their racial identity and romantic partner choice. This chapter centers the experiences that multiracial respondents have with their parents. It explores the dis/continuities between parents’ hopes and aspirations for their multiracial children’s identities and partner choices and that of said multiracial adult children. Amid any lack of alignment (between their parents’ perception and that of their own), multiracial people manage their racial mixture and preferred racial identity in relation to their romantic partner choices. They then must make sense of the ironies that emerge when their parents—­as members of interracial families or romantic relationships of their own—­ engage in the curious behavior of racial border patrolling or the racial regulation of identity and romantic partner choice. How do multiracial people distill any parental advice that they receive? Next, I discuss some of the ironies that emerge from parents’ attempt to regulate race and romance in their multiracial adult children’s lives.

104

Ironic Interactions | 105

A Mixed-­Race Habitus: Normalizing Racial Mixture As individuals who grow up within or in close(r) range to interracial relationships, as members of racially mixed families, many multiracial people develop a “mixed-­race habitus” or “multiracial habitus” that normalizes (but not necessarily idealizes) racial difference and diversity within families.1 Some witness(ed) the ways in which their parents negotiate the dis/approval of strangers, alongside any support, supportive opposition, or opposition from family members and friends.2 Growing up with this habitus means that many multiracial people come to understand and appreciate the commonalities that exist and emerge amid racial similarities and differences. They intimately know and understand how family and familial relationships remain racially contested terrain. As individuals with racially mixed identities and families form their own romantic relationships, how do their choices support or disrupt patterns of people gravitating toward “like others”? Do their families and friends encourage them (multiracial individuals) to conform to these social expectations, in part by relying on colorblind discourses to frame or express their preferences in ostensibly neutral ways? Just as some respondents arguably found it difficult to articulate or express the ways in which their romantic desires were racialized, so, too, did many of their parents. Nevertheless, many of their parents and other loved ones conveyed the (racialized) relationship expectations they held for the multiracial respondents. Frequently, many respondents spoke of their parents’ comments as guidance toward the “ideal” marital partners for them to consider. These comments, sprinkled into casual conversations across their life courses, gestured to—­or directly conveyed—­the proper (parental) criteria for desirable partners. The criteria included having the right credentials (a “good” [read: formal, college] education or coming from a good family). One respondent referred to the criteria as parents’ “high standards.” Notably, parents from a variety of racial backgrounds held these high standards for their multiracial children; they found ample opportunities to share these standards with their children. Based on respondents’ accounts, many of their parents would suggest a “certain someone,” in the hope that their respective multiracial

106 | Ironic Interactions

child(ren) partnered or chose accordingly. What may have been ideal in the parent’s imagination was not always ideal for the respondents. As a result, respondents, in their young adulthood, had a lot to discuss—­if not negotiate—­with their parents to close gaps in generational and individual expectations and experiences. Respondents also gave the impression that their parents used their own criteria (not that of the multiracial respondents) to assess if and how potential romantic partners measured up. Not all parents were very transparent about their criteria, instead using subtlety to artfully persuade yet strongly suggest possibilities (or not). Reportedly, parents had members of their own racial and ethnic groups in mind, possibly relatives of community members or friends and age peers of their own children (the multiracial respondents). Their preferences for culturally, ethnically, and possibly religiously similar others informed their discourses, allowing them to circumvent attention to race (whether intentional or not). Whether an omission as oversight or an intentional refusal to recognize race, parents’ imagined partner(s) were meant to inform the actual partner(s) their multiracial children chose. That is, many parents wanted to encourage romantic partner choices that provided increased access to privileges or improved the social status of the individual (multiracial respondent) and the family. I turn next to that topic.

Partners with Benefits, or How Romantic Relationships Facilitate the Climb in the Contemporary Racial Hierarchy Many parents possess the hope that their multiracial children will choose racial identities that help them access or accrue more racial privileges. To this end, parents encourage their children accordingly, often guiding them to choose racial identities with privileges or ones closest to whiteness (as it sits atop the racial hierarchy). This aligns with research that finds a proliferation of media images underscoring the desirability of whiteness (and/or lightness) as a dominant ideal; in turn, whiteness is equivocated with social mobility, opportunity, and success.3 Some parents of multiracial children encourage particular choices in romantic partnerships to further amplify access to racial privilege. By shaping, or even regulating, their multiracial children’s racial identity and partner choices, parents work to secure racial privileges that

Ironic Interactions | 107

may provide intergenerational benefits to their family. Through “racial redistricting”4 and/or “beneficiary border patrolling,”5 parents work to ensure that their children choose wisely, so to speak. They do so in an effort to maximize any attendant benefits to being multiracial and buying into the mythically expansive choices of potential romantic partner(s). Here’s what beneficiary border patrolling looks like at the individual and relational levels: some parents may attempt to reassign a racial category to their multiracial child(ren) in an effort to improve their children’s life chances or quality of life. For example, in an interracial family with a white father and an Asian mother, beneficiary border patrolling occurs when any or all children are identified or racially classified as white by one or both parents (often irrespective of said child/ren’s preferred racial identity). Recognizing a child’s white parentage but not their Asian parentage can be a way for interracially married/partnered parents to pass on white privilege; this is one way to encourage or enable their child(ren) to pass as white, to promote implicit whiteness, to access the currency of whiteness, when and where possible. In this way, whiteness works to cancel out or obscure any Asian ancestry that should otherwise be accounted for and acknowledged, even if not asserted in a person’s preferred racial identity. Whiteness thus becomes something of a racial inheritance, its social, material, and other benefits enjoyed within families whose members attempt to access these resources and maintain the boundaries of whiteness to shore up their privilege. Whiteness strategically gets preserved through these intentional sets of choices, which largely explains why, for families deeply invested in embodying or approximating the ideal, its members are strongly encouraged to identify as white, seek honorary white status or membership, and partner with whites. Throughout my research, this possessive investment in whiteness6 was made apparent through everyday discursive practices of people who wanted to whitewash themselves and/or their families. Among other respondents, whiteness was not valorized. Nevertheless, they felt that their romantic partner choices were shaped by the everyday discursive practices of their parents. Some respondents I interviewed shared narratives that spoke to the (subtle) social pressures they felt from family to make a particular set of choices. These pressures

108 | Ironic Interactions

informed the respondents’ racial identity and partner choices. However, they were often deployed through colorblind discourses instead of directives. The language of colorblindness proves particularly effective in ignoring or diminishing the significance of race. Just as race is ever-­present and central to the processes of racial socialization, parents remain interested and invested in how their multiracial children racially identify and engage in the mate selection process, as I illustrate further in the following section.

Racial Regulation through Cultural Preservation and Promotion, or “You Know, I Would Love It If You Dated an Indian Guy, You Know, a Nice Rich Indian Doctor” For some respondents, the messages about their parents’ preferences for their own (multiracial) identities and partner choices were loud and clear. This contrasts with some of the subtler socialization that other respondents reported. Consider this example: Jessica, a black-­identified woman with black and Asian Indian parentage, made this claim: My parents [Asian mother and black father] have never really touched the racial issue, now that I think about it. I don’t think they really care, like, who I date, as long as that person treats me right. Although my mom has said to me several times, “You know, I would love it if you dated an Indian guy, you know, a nice rich Indian doctor.”

This is interesting, if contradictory, commentary, given her parents’ interracial marriage (or that Jessica’s Asian Indian mother is married to Jessica’s father, a black man). While Jessica notes that her parents do not discuss race directly, she recalls the preceding experience. What would explain Jessica’s view of the irrelevance of race, even a colormuteness in her family, whereby race was neither relevant enough to discuss nor consequential to everyday life? In turning to the extant literature, we can find some answers. An “anything but racism”7 posture enables a denial or an avoidance of difficult dialogs on these topics.8 The rhetoric of colorblindness easily accommodates this and other contradictions, making space for people to perpetuate the racial hierarchy and any racial bias. A refusal to

Ironic Interactions | 109

recognize race and racism as influential in shaping the quality of people’s lives attempts an erasure of these social forces and structural inequalities. Acknowledging their presence proves more laborious than casually claiming their absence. Perhaps because, in referring to “an Indian guy,” her mother is technically talking about ethnicity (not race specifically), Jessica is correct in her contention that her parents “have never really touched on race,” the emphasis here (or lack thereof) being on race. Because it is commonplace for people to conflate the two terms—­ethnicity and race—­Jessica may not know for certain if and when her parents are talking about race when they are talking about ethnicity. It is possible that her mother relies on the language of ethnicity to navigate conversations about race (without appearing to actually be discussing race). If Jessica’s mother is using ethnicity, in part, interchangeably with race—­as many people do—­she is “racing romance.”9 By outlining the choices that she sees fit for her daughter and in attempting to influence those choices, she is also arguably engaging in racial border patrolling. This behavior becomes malevolent when intended to be restrictive, one designed to control or curtail Jessica’s choices, presumably to a particular racial (Asian) and/or ethnic (Indian) group. By specifically suggesting that Jessica find “a nice Indian doctor” (even if jokingly so), her mother communicates the importance or relevance not only of ethnicity but also of socioeconomic status. In this case, race, ethnicity, and caste (in an Indian context) or social class (in an American one) matter. Many multiracial respondents reported receiving these messages (in different iterations). The messages convey how social institutions such as families are reproduced along social lines, in terms of race, ethnicity, class, and even caste. As such, respondents learned more about where to draw the lines when choosing both their preferred racial identities as well as their romantic partners. Although Jessica has the freedom to choose who she wants to love, she confronts the reality of how her parents want her to choose. Her parents’ preferences could work to constrain her own choices, should she dutifully defer to their wishes at the expense of her own. Expectations for “dutiful daughters”10 highlight the influence of gender and culture (its importance, salience, and centrality) on the lives of multiracial people and their families.

110 | Ironic Interactions

The gender asymmetrical expectation of “culture keeping”11 tends to disproportionately impose itself on daughters. These asymmetries, with any attendant imperatives and/or directives, can confound the partnering process; pressures to bear the responsibility of cultural preservation fall to respective family members, many of whom lack presumed cultural knowledge or the desire to socialize others accordingly. Thus, the dilemma for dutiful daughters (and obliging sons) who want to please their parents and respect cultural expectations, norms, and practices is doing so but not at their (multiracial people’s) expense. Finding a balance between appropriate respect for (or even deference to) one’s parents and respect for one’s own desires and options for love and intimacy in romantic relationships often proves a precarious task. Some people get caught in the crossfire of cultural maintenance and parental preferences (of idealized partners deemed desirable for their multiracial adult children). Others dodge these expectations, deciding more autonomously and independently of their familial wishes. The latter pattern reflects that evidenced in the literature, where “less parental control over mate choice” is exacted on interracial couples, especially those who are more urban and mobile than others.12 For Jessica, her parents’ respective cultural backgrounds subtly yet powerfully inform her decisions: (1) through explicit expressions of preferences couched in casual comments and (2) through the implicit example she sees in her everyday life in an interracial family. Both of these examples reflect social forces that influence Jessica’s choices of identity and partner(s). If her parents were more explicit or direct about their preferences for her and her partner choices, Jessica would have to wrestle to close the gap between what she wants and what her parents want for her. Jessica’s mother makes visible the potential concerns related to the question, “Will ‘multiracial’ survive to the next generation?”13 If Jessica prefers a black racial identity and partners with someone black-­identified (at some point), perhaps she may be less likely to acknowledge her Asian Indian heritage or to share that in a significant way. Her mother may fear that possibility and that preferred racial identity of her daughter (which erases or veils her Indian heritage). Some research points to a permanency and continuity in preferred racial identity individually and relationally.14 That is, for most individuals, racial identity remains relatively fixed, within and outside of romantic relationships. In this way, Jessica’s

Ironic Interactions | 111

mother’s fears may largely be unfounded. These fears also often surface in speculative conversations and concerns about the next generation: “What about the children?” This question captures the anxiety about an imagined future full of anticipated hardships on racially mixed people; in response, parents often engage in anticipatory racial socialization.15 Instead, these anxieties could be addressed such that multiracial adults can make their own decisions regarding race and romance. Encouraging her to date an Indian man may be a way that Jessica’s mother attempts to acknowledge Jessica’s multiracial parentage and heritage. Additionally, she (mom) may harbor fears about any “shifting mixture” that she observes in her daughter. Witnessing this shifting can be viewed as a treasured aspect of intimacy within family, a dynamic that displays how comfortable multiracial people are in expressing their full selves, including the multidimensionality of multiraciality.16 As/if Jessica shifts from a “thick” to a “thin” racial (Asian) identity—­but never an identity that denies or abandons her Asian parentage—­she may appear to be rejecting her maternal (racial, ethnic, cultural, and national) heritage. Rather than recognize the plethora of possible ways of naming and claiming multiracial heritage, Jessica’s mother likely sees her daughter’s partnership with a black man as a primary reason for the diluting or “thinning” of her Asian identity.17 Presumably, this dilution results from being in a romantic relationship. However, such presumptions are false if and when multiracial people are choosing individual racial identities that were thinning prior to a significant romantic relationship. Through a lens of im/migration, parents in interracial marriages—­ who have had to deal with their own relationship to assimilation, incorporation, and integration—­may now be advising their children based on their own past and present experiences. That is, parents who entered their own interracial marriages and experienced them adversely may advise their multiracial (and often multiethnic and multicultural) children to make a different set of choices. Parental encouragement—­which can operate as racial border patrolling—­may reflect desires for cultural preservation, for the composite parts of the multiracial child(ren)’s heritage not to be lost, sacrificed, denied, or effectively erased.18 These parental fears speak to the extent to which romantic relationships are viewed as influencing individual identity. To this point, scholars note: “[W]hat appears to be missing from such research is how being

112 | Ironic Interactions

in an interracial relationship at a certain time and a certain place can change not just one’s perception of his or her racial identity, but others’ perception of one’s racial identity.”19 While the historical moment may certainly shape these dynamics, other researchers contend that more continuity than not persists in the preferred racial identity of members of interracial couples.20 Such findings challenge parental concerns that romantic relationships will further dilute their children’s multiracial identity. Notably, an iterative relationship between relational and individual identities should be considered given the idealization of romantic love and the significant influence of romantic relationships on those involved. Research also suggests that individuals can and often do develop different racial literacies and a heightened racial consciousness through interracial intimacy. Scholars recognize racial literacy21 and shifting racial identities22 as strengths rather than deficiencies, as these processes do not necessarily dilute or thin people’s racial identity.23 Rather, this racial literacy and racial empathy even enhance people’s ability to understand the racial realities of (racially different) others. In this way, Jessica may maintain her preferred black identity even when partnered with an Asian Indian man, or she may feel a shift in her identity with that intimate interracial relationship (with an Asian man). This builds on ideas I illustrated in earlier chapters, whereby multiracial people who partner with someone who claims a single race are viewed as at risk for their own racial identity to thin or becoming like that of their partner. For Jessica’s mother, she imagines this process (see figure 3.1).

Multiracial (Asian and Black)

Partners with a Black Person

Begins “Becoming Black” (Losing or Loosening Asian and/or Multiracial Identity)

Figure 3.1. Moving Away from “Multiracial,” “Becoming” Another Race (or some other race/s)

Ironic Interactions | 113

The literature suggests that multiracial people are socialized to thin and thicken their racial identities according to a variety of factors.24 As someone who exclaimed, “I love black people,” Jessica’s thickening blackness may not necessarily result from further racial literacy and empathy cultivated within the intimacy of her romantic relationship with a black man (although I hold space for that possibility and actuality). Largely, it may be the consequence of being sorted out into collective blackness in the contemporary racial hierarchy.25 Thus, these broader societal forces, not exclusively relational ones (i.e., being seen as always already “just black”),26 may account for and inform just how multiracial people experience and assert their racial mixture. Finally, Jessica’s thickening blackness makes sense in the context of social environments—­ such as the city where she lives—­that support her ideologies and allow her to embrace and celebrate her above sentiment and her preferred black racial identity. Jessica’s experience, along with her mother’s fears, underscore the importance of understanding, and learning how to accommodate, if not celebrate, fluid racial identities, or shifting mixture. Making space for racially mixed people’s racial identities to change over their life courses remains vital in the process of affirming autonomous choices in these ways. Researchers have observed a dearth of discussions of shifting mixture, or “the fluctuation of racial identities among those in interracial marriages, although such discussions are very prevalent in the literature concerning biracial children and their racial identities (for review, see Rockquemore and Brunsma, 2002). The scant literature that has focused on the potential impacts of interracial relationships on racial identity has considered the extent to which an individual is aware of or identifies with his or her race (Helms, 1990).”27 My work here attempts to begin filling the lacuna, as I discuss the different ways multiracial people manage their individual and relational identities within various social contexts. As parents maintain concerns about their children’s choices, in terms of both individual racial identities and romantic partner(s), their fears connect to the attendant value attached to those choices. In Jessica’s case, her mother might have viewed her daughter as “becoming black.”28 For parents (of multiracial children with known black ancestry and/or parentage), witnessing the transformative process of their multiracial

114 | Ironic Interactions

children “becoming black,” or “opting for black,” can provoke a range of responses. What informs these responses reflects (1) any awareness they have of the prevalence of anti-­black racism in this country and (2) any real or imagined rejection that presumably results in choosing preferred racial identities that may or may not align with parents’ racial identification of their children. Parental fears that ignore any flexibility in their multiracial children’s racial identity overlook the possibility that these multiracial people might claim different racial identities in different settings or among different groups of people. This does not reflect disidentification.29 Instead, it illustrates the choosing of a preferred identity as an autonomous decision. This decision may be informed or influenced by others but is ultimately the multiracial person’s choice to make. Preferred racial identity reflects choice rather than the cancellation of association or identification with/as any racial groups otherwise unnamed in a preferred identity (in Jessica’s case, choosing a black identity instead of a multiracial or even an Asian one). Building on the preceding discussion, it remains just as important to see multiracial people being as influential on others as the other way around. Thus, if it is possible to have known black ancestry and experience the process of “becoming black,”30 is it also likely or necessary to acknowledge the impact that multiracial people have on their intimate romantic partner(s) such that the latter might experience “becoming multiracial” (in consciousness, not necessarily identity)? Consider figure 3.2, which illustrates this imagined impact on Jessica’s black-­ identified romantic partner. So much of the discourse focuses on the dilution of racial identity to the point that racial mixture seemingly evaporates or disappears, yet very little attention is paid to the process of “becoming” (some other race/s) or similar processes whereby the composite racial identity of a multiracial person shapes the racial consciousness of their partner. While this has been discussed in the direction of “becoming black,”31 few scholars present a mutual or multidirectional possibility. Such a possibility makes space to move away from reinforcing a black/white racial binary, to understand how people’s shifting mixture and claimed racial mixture reshapes their own identity and potentially that of their intimate romantic partner(s).

Ironic Interactions | 115

Black Person

Partners with a Black-Identified Multiracial Person

Begins “Becoming Multiracial”

Figure 3.2. Building a Multiracial Consciousness, Becoming Multiracial (or “becoming” some other race/s)

Throughout her lifetime, Jessica’s identity may shift because or in spite of her romantic partner. She may experience shifting mixture, moving from asserting a multiracial identity to a singular black identity to a border identity and then back to black. For her, and others like her, she may begin to see being Asian Indian as an “optional ethnicity” in ways that echo white ethnic options.32 This may mean that “multiracial” does not survive in the next generation. Instead, it may grow into a broadened and diversified racial consciousness of Jessica and her partner. Because even though Jessica prefers a black identity, she is frequently read as racially mixed. In partnership, then, her black partner witnesses and learns about her racial mixture and multiplicity through the sharing of experiential knowledge shaped by social life. Parental concerns about racial identity and “thinning” seldom reflect the possibility that multiracial people in interracial relationships will enable these multiracial individuals to strengthen their racial identity as they share their racial realities and everyday experiences with their loved ones. This process of sharing can also simultaneously strengthen the social ties and feeling of connection and understanding within this interracial intimacy. Multiracial people making decisions about their racial identity and partner choices may consider, to differing degrees, the impact of their choices on others. In navigating their racial sense of self and managing their romantic careers, multiracial people may come to consider the relational dimensions of their decisions, not just the individual ones.

116 | Ironic Interactions

Recognizing the family as a social institution that shapes individual lives remains an important part of understanding the social forces that influence identities and partner choices. It also illuminates many of the choices parents make in “raising biracial children.”33 People can gain an appreciation for the ways parents might mold multiracial children’s identities over their lifetime, as well as the ways that multiracial people assert agency in the process of “forming and performing race”34 alongside engaging in the process of mate selection and choosing their romantic partners on their own terms. This process can become more complicated when parents frame their behavior as protective or when their behavior (border patrolling practices) becomes more malevolent. I discuss each of these processes in turn.

Protective Measures and Mechanisms, or Racial Regulation as Risk and Reward Assessment Parents practice protective mechanisms to keep their children safe(r) from harm. Most want their children to experience prosperity, not adversity. For parents of multiracial children, the aim may involve buffering their children from antagonisms and hostilities. Some parents work to mitigate any racial microaggressions or minimize the deleterious impact of racism on their children.35 Some of the harmful, adverse effects of racism relate to poor health outcomes,36 including higher rates of obesity, heart disease, anxiety, and more; worse health care delivery37 and disparities in quality of care;38 maternal care;39 and a refusal to recognize or register and treat pain among black people.40 Race and racism impact the quality, and shape the contours, of people’s everyday lives.41 Sometimes, parents engage in protective practices alongside border patrolling. That is, despite aiming to protect their children, they may inadvertently enact harm through attempts to regulate the choices their multiracial children make about their preferred racial identities and romantic partners. Amid protective parental efforts, some police choices best made by their multiracial children. These choices include selecting their preferred racial identity and partner(s) in their romantic careers, if so desired. Consider the experiences of Maritza, a black Hispanic woman who was born in Panama but spent much of her young adulthood in the

Ironic Interactions | 117

southeastern United States. While she reported no racial preferences of potential romantic partners, Maritza indicated that her mother felt otherwise. Her mother generally “doesn’t really care but she would just prefer if I don’t date a light skin or ‘pretty boy.’” (Despite this “not caring,” Maritza’s mother perceived African Americans as “no good” and cautioned her daughter about getting involved with them socially and/or romantically.) Maritza’s mother worked to dissuade her from individually identifying as black and/or romantically or relationally partnering with native-­born blacks. This relatively unsavory view of native-­born blacks is not atypical for new(er) immigrants who internalize racism as much as the rest of the national population.42 Instead, this view reflects a persistent anti-­black racism that exists at individual and institutional levels.43 Like Maritza’s mother, family members express these preferences in their everyday lives, including the intimate spaces of homeplace.44 We can see the power in the little things said casually and fleetingly.45 Maritza’s comments convey the strength of messages not only about people as potential partner choices but also about the available identity options for her. The cautionary tales from Maritza’s mother about African American men as “no good” work not only to narrow down her (daughter’s) choices but also to guide her away from (partnering and identifying as or with) this group. Being cautioned in this way communicates a few things to Maritza: (1) how her mother would prefer for her to racially identify (as black Panamanian); maybe more pointedly, (2) how she would prefer Maritza not to racially (and ethnically) identify (as African American); and (3) who she prefers as a romantic partner for her daughter. Despite these maternal messages, Maritza identifies as a multiracial black Panamanian woman; she chooses that racial identity not only, in part, because of her mother’s insistence that she differentiate herself from African Americans, but also to affirm the multiplicity of her racial (ethnic, national, and cultural) identity. Maritza might be viewed as establishing an identity as “black and” (some other race/s) or as black multiracial. This choice contrasts with her mother’s more explicitly “not [African American] black” identification of her. In their own varying ways, the two move away from blackness, either by encouraging a rejection of or a disidentification46 with blackness (per the mother’s guidance) or by drawing distinctions from and/or in relation to blackness (a

118 | Ironic Interactions

kind of problematizing or interrogating blackness but circumventing it all the same). Maritza and her mom ultimately participate in an anti-­blackness that is both pervasive in this society and typical of new or recent immigrants.47 This is true even—­maybe especially—­among those who try to distance themselves from the group they learn is most disadvantaged and disparaged in the United States and the group most likely to envelop them.48 Consequently, mother and/or daughter might learn over time that their attempts to distance themselves from African Americans or native blackness fail, especially if others see them as part of the collective black group. Without also interviewing her mother, I cannot know for sure why she directs Maritza away from blackness and specifically from partnering with light-­skinned black men. For many parents, their own past or present experiences seemed to guide their interactions with their multiracial (adult) children. For Maritza, this means being dissuaded from pursuing men her mother views as undesirable. More broadly, the impact of this racial socialization and regulation results in the denial of Maritza’s freedom to make autonomous and empowering choices for herself. Situating her mother’s cautionary approach within a contemporary and historical context that devalues black women49 and proves dismissive of black women’s pain,50 Maritza’s mother’s advice takes on a different register. While she may possess implicit biases, she just as likely is trying to protect her daughter from the kind of violence that was foundational to this country and that persists as a force designed to discipline and/or terrorize women. Given my discussion in the previous chapter, Maritza’s mom might harbor legitimate fears about the embodied exploitation and patterned fetishization and objectification of multiracial women in this country. Perhaps she offers advice as a way of guiding her away from real or imagined injury, harm, or abuse, even as such protective behavior also proves prejudicial as it perpetuates racial border patrolling vis-­à-­vis these stereotypes. At the intersections of race, nationality, gender, and sexuality, Maritza theoretically inhabits a precarious place as a dark-­skinned black Panamanian heterosexual woman. She might not understand her vulnerability or precarity but can develop and deploy her agency for attempts to avoid or minimize this exploitation or objectification.

Ironic Interactions | 119

Evidence of paternal protective mechanism emerged from my data as well. Take the experiences of Leilani, a black-­identified woman with black and Hawaiian parentage. As the older daughter in her family, Leilani contended with the gendered masculine dimensions of her father’s protectiveness, which she described as border patrolling yet defended later in the interview. She contrasts her parents’ reactions to her romantic relationship with her long-­term boyfriend (who is black): “Once I told my mother that I was dating, she didn’t seem to have a problem. Once I told my father that I was dating him [my boyfriend], his [my dad’s] main concern was that I was dating. It really wasn’t about his race” (emphasis in original). Here, Leilani’s experience highlights her parents’ desire to protect their children from gendered racism51 as well as any opposition to race mixing people express, whether explicitly or, increasingly, subtly.52 In following gendered norms for men in a patriarchy, Leilani’s father protects his children. However, he ostensibly overprotects his daughter. What prompts this impulse? While Leilani denies that this protection does not seem guided or framed by race, I contend that it may have to do with Leilani’s (implicitly white) appearance. Leilani reported being frequently misread as implicitly white. If and when others—­especially any who specifically oppose black/white interracial relationships—­(mis) read her as white and see her with her black boyfriend, they may express any attendant antagonism directly to her. Leilani’s father may be abundantly aware of the risks of such misperceptions. His efforts to offer protection of his daughter arguably also extend to that of her boyfriend (who also risks potential harm in the face of the historical and contemporary hostilities toward interracial intimacy). Here’s an additional point that is important to note: how Leilani views herself and how others view her remains out of alignment. That is, while others often view her relationship as “interracial,” Leilani does not. After all, Leilani sees herself as black or as having a “border identity”53 with a “primarily black emphasis.”54 Leilani acknowledges her multiracial parentage but appears (implicitly) white. Her choices, which are not mutually exclusive, reflect a desire to embrace blackness and affirm her racial multiplicity. They may also have a lot to do with her efforts to negate or counter her physical approximation of whiteness (given her implicit whiteness) and (re)locate herself closer to blackness.

120 | Ironic Interactions

Some multiracial people vocally and actively embrace that which others cannot (or refuse to) readily see.55 The logic is that the audible makes the invisible visible. Telling the truth becomes the “body as evidence”56 of “things not seen.”57 In thinking about how this applies to Leilani (a white-­looking woman), we can see that her articulation of a black racial identity makes its ostensible absence present; blackness is often always already present in many people who claim a white identity58 or appear white.59 That she shares an overlapping blackness with her partner, and asserts a preferred black identity, makes hers/theirs—­by extension—­an implicitly interracial relationship. That is, to outsiders, this relationship signals “interracial intimacy.” To her/them, it does not. While Leilani may be trying to actively affirm and confirm her blackness because its invisibility otherwise calls her racial identity into question, she surrenders any attendance privileges her implicit whiteness affords her. In the wake of this surrender, parental protection takes on a different interpretation and importance. Theoretically, parental protection operates such that adult multiracial children, like Leilani, are shielded by any acrimony until they are well equipped to handle the curiosities, questions, or contentions of others. This kind of protection both reflects (in her father) and cultivates (in Leilani) a heightened consciousness of race and racism likely increases survivability and empowers multiracial people to navigate potentially tenuous, if not nefarious, social situations. Sometimes, as Leilani observed, this hostility can simmer within families, between relatives resistant to interracial intimacy, or ones who remain reluctant to their own (sometimes invisibly mixed) interracial families diversifying, blending racial borders (more), and/or becoming more clearly, visibly mixed. As discussed throughout this chapter, this resistance can come from interracially married or partnered parents. Leilani spoke to this dynamic. She bravely acknowledged the powerful influence of her black mother and Hawaiian father (whom she casually described as “kind of racist and not really”) on her own thoughts and behavior. To the latter point, she explained: Well, he doesn’t really like white people. Just because of issues he’s had when he was younger. So I think if I bring home any other race aside from white, for him that would be okay. For my mother, I think she really

Ironic Interactions | 121

wants me to be with a black male, but if I bring home a white male or an Asian guy or whatever, she’s gonna be fine with it, because she herself didn’t marry a black man.

Interestingly, some parents seem to project their (past or present) preferences onto their multiracial children, thereby creating the very “ironic interactions” that make navigating racial identity and partner choices that much more cumbersome for multiracial people already on the fault lines of race.60 In observing the protective border patrolling practices of her parents, we can begin linking this behavior to the role that parents play in their (adult) children’s lives. Protective border patrolling also links to what parents may have been exposed to and experienced in their own interracial relationships. As members of an interracial couple, these parents likely faced a number of reactions from others, and these experiences frame the way they guide their multiracial children, even into adulthood. Parents may be attempting to buffer their children from the kinds of hostility or antagonism they faced in the social world. For the remainder of this chapter, I turn my focus to the more dissuasive comments some respondents heard regarding their parents’ understanding of them. In prioritizing their own view of their multiracial child(ren)’s preferred racial identity and partner choice(s), many parents engaged in more regulating forms of border patrolling. Among the many respondents who shared these experiences, they noted how their parent(s)’ comments effectively work to flatten out their (multi)racial identity options, invalidate many of their preferred racial identities, and/ or narrow their romantic partner choices.

“I’ll Disown You If You Marry Someone of Another Race”: Parental Rejection as a Regulation of Race and Romance The preceding quote speaks to the actual or potential price that a person pays when choosing a romantic partner. It conveys the costs involved to individuals and families when real and imagined choices fail to align. This misalignment poses a threat to familial relationships and networks. This price, ironically and effectively, forces such individuals to trade family for family or to socially lose some members of their family

122 | Ironic Interactions

(of origin) while gaining or creating others (of choice). That is, a multiracial person who dates, partners with, and/or marries someone of other race(s)—­and is disowned by their family of origin for that decision—­ sacrifices those social ties. While losing (or perhaps loosening) connection to parents (and possibly others), they simultaneously continue fortifying and building connections to a partner (and possibly their partner’s family). As the social ties to one’s family are severed or substantially weakened, so, too, is any support that might otherwise be offered by parents to their adult children as they establish and navigate their romantic careers. In this scenario, the romantic relationship thrives as the relationship between the multiracial person and the parent(s) dissolves. Amid efforts to establish romantic careers of their own, some multiracial people risk rejection from their own family (not to mention a similar potentiality from their partner’s family as well); this rejection remains one liability to “racing romance”61 and blending racial borders.62 The preceding quote also captures just one of the “ironic interactions” for multiracial individuals in interracial families: facing rejection and the regulation of race and romance from their own (interracially married or partnered) parents proves a possibility. If the guiding expectation or presumption is that such parents would automatically be supportive of these romantic relationships, then the reality to the contrary likely comes as a surprise. Many multiracial respondents noted that some of their family members and close friends explicitly expressed concern about their (the respondents’) partner choices. This concern included advice to avoid members of certain racial groups; it is a reflection of the regulation of race and romance. These individuals cautioned them about forming serious attachments to people in particular racial and ethnic groups and instead steered them in the “right” direction (toward people they viewed as more socially desirable potential romantic partners). An example of this regulation and redirection surfaced during my interview conversation with Peg. Worried that she and her boyfriend (whom she is intentionally careful about introducing to her parents as “her friend”) have developed a serious relationship, Peg’s father calls to offer his advice. Peg recalls him saying,

Ironic Interactions | 123

“Well, you don’t want to be dating a black guy because some people out there, they may not want to date you because you date a black guy.” And I’m thinking he’s talking about those people, you know? [emphasis in original]. “Alright, I see where you are coming from.” And then he’s like, “And you may not get hired based on, you know, dating him.” I’m like, “Okay, whatever. There are stories.” And then he’s like, “Plus, black people and I just don’t get along.” And I was like, “What do you mean?” And he was like, “Well, I was in the army, and we just don’t get along.”

Rather than respect and encourage his daughter to make autonomous choices in her own romantic career, Peg’s father diminishes this possibility by prioritizing his own feelings. Amid his recollection of the residual tension and displeasure he felt with black people from his past, he uses these negative experiences to (1) pass that (and various unsavory stereotypes about black people) onto his daughter and (2) police her engagements with black people. He does not acknowledge that his daughter might see her boyfriend as her “forever love.” As such, it would not matter who else does or does not want to date her (there may be no one “after” him if the couple stays together forever). He also minimizes Peg’s feelings and prioritizes those of others, complete strangers really, who might think poorly of her for presumably “lowering her standards” to date a black man. Peg’s father seems unworried about how his own daughter might view him (given his racist ideologies). That he seems to have already imagined better (read: white) men in Peg’s future reveals and reflects dominant racial ideologies and shows how temporary he hopes her current romantic relationship will be. Ironically, Peg’s partner choice will likely impact her, as research indicates.63 Her father’s views thread into those findings. Being in close proximity to and cultivating intimacy with black people can result in “black by proxy”64 penalties; these penalties include increased or intensified racial surveillance, racial harassment, and racial discrimination (and any other attendant losses of racial privilege).65 Peg’s dad may be attempting to protect his daughter, but he does so while/by conveying his prejudices (an action that undermines his expressed concerns given how injurious his ideas and words are). Upholding—­rather than

124 | Ironic Interactions

challenging—­the racial hierarchy maintains a racial divide. Doing the former from within interracial relationships that could dissolve this divide remains a curiosity. For multiracials in these situations, confronting such racial ideologies and experiencing the regulation of race and romance entails emotion work.66 This emotional labor or race work67 of engaging others, especially relatives within their interracial families, should not be understated. This race work reflects the complication of multiracial people having to engage in negotiations of their racial identities and romantic relationships, as they grapple with the paradox of being racially regulated by relatives who have likely had similar experiences within their own romantic relationships. The surprise of such regulation by family members illustrates an irony, even a cliché: “Do as I say, not as I do.” While families should be “safe havens” largely free of such scrutiny, they may not always be. This is evident in interracial families in which racial mixture already exists yet remains rebuked or rejected in various ad nefarious ways. Multiracial individuals who encounter racial regulation from their family are shortchanged the experience of any (anticipated) approval, safety, and support. Facing racial regulation inside and outside of their romantic relationships can make multiracial people in interracial relationships feel invalidated in their (identity and/or partner) choices or challenged by racism that permeates society and runs through to their own interracial families. Exploring “ironic interactions” further, I consider another dimension of Peg’s example to illustrate parental policing of the identities and partner choices of their adult multiracial children. Peg’s father invalidates her preferred racial identity by overlooking how her (multi)racial identity overlaps with the “black guy” she was dating at the time of our interview; that her boyfriend is also multiracial Asian and that they share aspects of their heritage are points that seem lost on her dad. Even though people perceive Peg’s boyfriend as black, or “just black,”68 he is “more than black” or multiracial (like Peg but different). The two have both similar and different backgrounds, their Asian racial group membership is shared, and his blackness and her whiteness are what differ. Their relationship may be viewed as “interracial” (irrespective of their shared Asianness) because of his blackness and her whiteness. Arguably, however, that overlapping similarity matters.

Ironic Interactions | 125

Peg’s father may choose how to frame his opposition to their “friendship” (romantic relationship, really). Rather than directly express his opposition to his daughter’s “interracial” relationship, he indirectly does so through the frame of fatherhood. The aforementioned gendered expectations of fathers’ protection of their daughters deploy sexism and racism but make both forms of oppression palatable through a patriarchal frame and a narrative of protectionism. This serves as an example of the ways systems of oppression operate and can intensify at various intersections. This matrix of domination69 supports the kind of gendered racism that Peg and others face when multiracial women are deemed “in need of protection” from “threatening” men. As if her father’s regulation of her racial identity and romantic relationship were not enough, Peg’s mother also engages in this practice but expresses more explicit opposition. Shortly after her introduction to Peg’s “friend” (“And remind you [sic], every guy I have is ‘a friend,’ no matter what, just a friend. And I’m like, ‘Yeah, he’s just a friend.’”), this transpires: She’s like, “Okay.” And I’m like, “Okay.” Then she says, “Because you don’t want to be seen with a ‘gumdingy’.” I was like, “What?!” and I was just like, “Okay.” Like ‘gumdingy,’ it’s Korean slang for, I guess the equivalent to, I don’t know, [the ‘n word’], I’m assuming. I’m not sure . . . the thing is, I don’t know the meaning of that word explicitly but I do know when I heard it that it wasn’t, it was almost like the first time I heard the ‘n word.’ I don’t really need a definition. I just knew it was bad. . . . And she was like, “You don’t want to be seen or be with one.” I’m like, “Okay, now I know more so, and because the thing is even though I always knew my parents had racist tendencies, or whatever, they never really explicitly said it, or I never really heard my parents say shit like—­well, no. I’ve heard my dad say the ‘n word.’ The last time I heard him was when I was fifteen, going through driver’s training but it wasn’t frequent. I’ve never said it to an actual person. . . . I am completely the opposite of my parents, you know? . . . I think my parents kind of expected me to grow up in the same type of thinking that they had, to be fearful of Mexicans and blacks, and you know, “don’t trust them.” You know what I mean?

Any gendered racism, microaggressions, or hostilities Peg’s mother may have experienced (individually and relationally) as an Asian woman

126 | Ironic Interactions

married to a white man in the Midwest does not nurture much racial empathy. Instead, they seem like distant memories in Peg’s narrative. Her mother’s disparaging comments are yet another example of anti-­ black racism that permeates and persists in society;70 her language hints at her racial solidarity, aligning with other Asians and whites. Her comments convey that she enjoys privileges, primarily by proxy (through marriage) and as an “honorary white” person, and she makes clear to her daughter, Peg, the ways in which that racial privilege must be maintained intergenerationally. Even Peg’s friends endorsed and normalized this protection of privileges. Some of them expressed surprise at her parents effectively cautioning her against partnering with a black man with the common racial il/logic: “Just don’t marry one.”71 With puzzlement, friends admitted, “‘Well, that doesn’t make any sense. You’re Asian and they’re interracial.’ And I’m like, ‘Yes, but no’ because I’m—­my dad doesn’t see me as “Other,” meaning the “Other” [emphasis hers], as in a bad group to date or whatever.” Peg’s comments suggest her father may see her as “not really Asian,” honorary white, or even through a “white like me” lens.72 Peg’s friends seemed to share this view as well as her father’s cautionary advice. Because they have developed the “kinder, gentler” style of racism,73 some of Peg’s friends could unflinchingly say, “‘You know, black people, we can be friends with them; we can be nice to them but um . . .’” The ellipses here hint at what follows but remain unspoken publicly: “We cannot marry them.” This regulation links to the reproduction of families that intersects with the reproduction of race.74 That is, the regulation of racial identities and partner choices remains a way of regulating individuals and reproducing race and social structures in particular ways. Peg observes and experiences this regulation among her social network. Well versed in the discursive strategies of colorblindness, Peg’s friends and family attempted to make all the right moves to preserve white privilege while avoiding any accusations of racism. However, Peg critically intervenes: The language you use, the types of feelings you have about race, and you’re trying to—­like the way I felt like was talking to some of my friends, like they were trying to say they were better than my parents because they could be open about this kind of stuff, and I’m just like, “You know what?

Ironic Interactions | 127

What do you say when someone says, ‘Well, why don’t you date a black guy?’ and you’re like, “Well, I’m just not attracted to black people.” What is that? You know what I mean? How is that any better than my parents being the way they are? I’m just like, “Don’t try to trump my parents with your supposed openness and socially aware conscience.”

While Peg respects the direct manner in which her father expresses his (albeit problematic) opposition, she dislikes what she sees as duplicity among her friends, a kind of “two-­faced racism”75 that reveals a different truth. Furthermore, both Peg’s parents and these friends can be understood as engaging in racial border patrolling of her racial identity and partner choice. For Peg and other multiracial people, the language of affirmation proves important (especially in light of how much they must manage racial border patrolling and identity invalidation).76 That Peg’s friends describe her as Asian (vs. multiracial) ignores her preferred identity as multiracial. In such situations, referring to multiracial person as a single race flattens out the complexity and multiplicity of their racial identity. Furthermore, the language of singularity ignores any overlapping of race made more likely when two multiracial people partner, as is the case for Peg and her partner. These and other examples Peg shared reflect the border patrolling that occurs around identities and intimacy. They exemplify the regulation of racial identities and romantic relationships—­that Peg is a singular race (Asian), not multiple races (white and Asian), and that she should partner accordingly. Should she partner with “someone of another race,” an “anything but black” imperative applies under the dominant colormute, colorblind, and decidedly anti-­black logic. For Peg, being in a relationship with a multiracial man—­who looks singularly black to most others—­requires her to confront colorblindness and the racial ideologies guiding her family’s opposition to and friends’ ostensible support of her associating with black-­looking men. She indicated that her parents would want to know “what my boyfriend does for a living” so that they can figure out “what type of black person he is.” That is, they would ask loaded questions, judging questions . . . not questions just out of curiosity. “It’s like, ‘I wanna find out and I want to see where I can place this guy.’” This type of questioning echoes the logic

128 | Ironic Interactions

underlying exchanges other respondents had, interrogations organized around black respectability politics.77 Encouragingly, Peg reported experiencing a kind of identity validation with her boyfriend (he “recognizes that I’m Asian”) that eluded her in previous relationships. In fact, as previously mentioned, Peg and her boyfriend have overlapping Asian identities, although her boyfriend chooses to assert a singular black identity. Peg shares, “He jokes around and stuff. Like he’ll tell me, “‘Yeah, I’m going out with a Korean girl.’ And I was like, “Why do you have to say that?” she recalled, laughing. “He’ll say, ‘Oh, it’s just a joke.’ And then his friends were like, ‘For real, you’re going out with an Asian girl,’ and then they make some sexual reference like, ‘Oh, they got them sideways [pejorative reference for vaginas].’” These comments reflect the eroticization and sexual fetishism of Asian women. Despite its problematic and derogatory connotations, Peg otherwise appreciated having her Asian identity validated, since she does not aspire to whiteness or does “not want to be like white.” Throughout our interview conversation, Peg acknowledged just how much being Asian means “being the exotic other,” including being sexually fetishized. She observed the trap of the Asian woman stereotype: “I was sexy being Asian, but can I get any sexier? No.” Countering Peg’s response, I would answer in the affirmative, adding that the always already sexy Asian and multiracial woman may have compounded others’ way of constructing fetishism in the “Other.” The “double Otherness” that is Asian and multiracial intensifies the sexual spectacle that people who fall into these categories, and arguably women in particular, experience. Thus, a multiracial Asian woman may experience a heightened form of fetishism, eroticism, and exoticism from others. Scholarship corroborates this standpoint, offering support (through gendered racial formation theory78) for the “heightened status of Asian-­ White multiracials compared to the in-­between status of Black-­White multiracial daters.”79 Researchers posit that [t]hese differences may be best explained by how race, gender, and sexuality converge in societal notions of desirability. In the case of multiracial Asian women, one possible explanation is that stereotypical tropes (i.e., controlling images of the Asian lotus blossom and dragon lady) regarding the hyper-­sexualization of Asian American femininity, and the racialized

Ironic Interactions | 129

perception of multiraciality as sexually exotic, together reinforce their elevated status in online dating.80

Confronting this fetishism, eroticism and exoticism can be challenging and emotionally exhausting. Having a partner who is also multiracial (of a different mixture and identity) and who has had similar or shared experiences seems to have helped to alleviate some of the frustration, isolation, or alienation of Peg managing multiracial (multiple) Otherness. Having not only a racially literate81 partner but also one who is racially sensitive or empathic makes light(er) the race work that becomes a part of managing interracial intimacy.82 Because both acknowledge a shared Asian/Asian American racial heritage but have different Asian ethnicities, they experience similar differences. Her Korean and his Indian ethnicity, as mitigated by her lightness and his darkness, create socially different experiences for them; her lightness lends support to the view that she is read as implicitly white, while his darker skin color renders him implicitly (singularly) black. (Other respondents shared in this experience, citing skin color variations [within their romantic relationships and families] as compounding the reactions of others.) As both assert (different) singular racial identities and manage their respective invisible mixture, they provide support in ways specifically informed by this experiential and embodied knowledge as people with racial mixture. Peg notes her appreciation for the more genuine racial and/or ethnic empathy that her current boyfriend expresses: “I can talk to my current boyfriend about white people and not feel as if I have to explain it. With my previous boyfriend, I still was aware of all this kind of stuff. I couldn’t verbalize it with him without trying to teach him.” Even as racial discrimination maintains people of color as its primary target, the same people are expected to take on the challenge or burden of dismantling racism by discussing or explaining it to others.83 Partnering with someone racially literate also helps alleviate that burden. For Peg, the rewards then of racial empathy are twofold: (1) she garners support from her partner’s understanding of her experiences with racism (additionally informed by his own firsthand experiences with racism), and (2) she does not have to engage in the emotional labor that comes with explaining such experiences or the educational expectations

130 | Ironic Interactions

that she will teach or translate race and racism across color lines and categories of difference.84 In the absence of such empathy (in a partner or others), individuals are encouraged to engage in even more emotional labor, explain their experiences, and convince others of their legitimacy. This expectation compounds the existing emotional labor, leaving individuals feeling frustrated or exhausted in their search for validation and legitimation. Peg conveys the casual way the two, as a couple, openly joke about their racial multiplicity and invisible mixture. Through lighthearted humor, they communicate the different ways they understand themselves and one another. Peg shared that “he sees that I surround myself with white friends and all this stuff. . . . He’s like—­‘No one else sees you as white. You’re Asian. You look Asian.’ That’s a joking thing between he and I have because I say to him, ‘You’re not Asian. Because I’m, like, Asian—­Asian people who look like me.’ I’m like, ‘That is what Asian America is like. You are not Asian.’” Peg explains, “People have taught me that ‘Asian American’ is people who look like me, and it was only recently that I started becoming aware of this. I was like, ‘Oh, okay.’ Because for the longest time, it was just like Asian Americans are people who have black hair, slanted eyes, small frame, pale skin.” Her comments prove useful in thinking through race essentialism as it relates to authenticity testing or who really counts as Asian. In joking about how her boyfriend is “not Asian” because his implicitly singular blackness disqualifies him as Asian, she disrupts the racial logic that guides so much of their individual and mutual experiences with racial border patrolling. Relying on this jocular style also works to highlight the “same/difference” between her and her boyfriend. That others suggest Peg ostensibly looks more Asian than her boyfriend does actually makes her more Asian than him. In fact, her narrative suggests that she is often racialized and viewed as an honorary white, or as someone who approximates whiteness well. Despite her desire to claim an Asian Korean identity, she may act in ways that shape others’ perception of her as white. This view puts distance between her and the Asian heritage she claims. Other respondents experienced similar sorts of regulation around their racial identity and partner choice. Tracy, the only child of her black mother and Asian Filipino father, indirectly and vicariously experienced

Ironic Interactions | 131

racial border-­patrolling behavior from her parents. They interrogated her white boyfriend’s motivations for being with her. She shares here the ways her parents knew her boyfriend as a member of their community but hesitated to view him as more than that (given that his romantic interest in her provoked their suspicions): My parents were dating him, too. . . . He started coming over to my house all the time. When my boyfriend showed how serious he was, he drove from [the city] because I went back home last summer to work, and he lived in [the city], he drove home every weekend and spent the weekend with me. So they started seeing, “He’s serious. He actually wants to be with her.” And um, I just remember first, one night I was asleep and they were out on the porch sitting talking ’til 1 a.m. and my mom was like, “I just wanna get to the nitty-­gritty of this.” He was like, “Okay.” “I know it’s 1 o’clock in the morning, but what makes you wanna date colored people?” So he kind of was like, “Ah, I just like ’em.” So yeah, I guess that kind of just kicked off the way they met. And after my mom got over that he wanted to date colored people, as she put it, it was okay. . . . He was just like, “I’ve never looked at color! You know? It’s just what I like.” It kind of made my mother be like, “Oh, you like my daughter.” He earned so many points with my dad. [It worked out that] I was staying at home, and he’d stay at his mom’s house for the weekend, so every Friday he was home, and every Sunday night, he’d stay ’til 11 p.m., even though he had to be at work at 6. But he was just like, “I just wanna spend as much time with you as I can.” So my mom was just like (skeptically), “Hmm,” and he grilled/cooked out with my dad. Like it wasn’t like he’d just come home and see me, and not speak to my parents. He actually like spent time with my parents without me. He’d just come over to watch TV. And they’d all be watching TV together, and I’d come home from work, and they’d all be like, “Hey.” It’s just like, “How long have you been here?” “Why were you here for 5 hours?”

Through common interests (grilling or cooking out), Tracy’s white boyfriend and Asian father were able to get to know each other. Her boyfriend, a computer science major, generously offered and successfully set up personal computers for Tracy’s parents: “Ever since then, he’s been my dad’s best friend. Yeah, that’s what did it for him. He’s in the family.”

132 | Ironic Interactions

Both Tracy and her boyfriend understood the importance of allowing her parents to question his motivations a bit. Doing so allowed her boyfriend to express his sincere interest in their daughter, while the parents could work to protect their daughter. Perhaps the dubious benefit of border patrolling, even when it is some combination of protective and malevolent forms, involves allowing someone like Tracy’s boyfriend to display his affections with sincerity as a way of establishing trust with skeptical others (like Tracy’s concerned parents). Tracy’s parents’ scrutiny and suspicion ultimately proved purposeful in necessitating that Tracy’s boyfriend demonstrate his commitment and loyalty to her and, by extension, his broader interest and investment in her family. Should Tracy’s boyfriend been more easily discouraged by the racial border patrolling of her parents, the two might not have lasted as a couple (arguably an un/intentional goal of protective parents). Luckily, Tracy’s boyfriend shared interests with her parents proved his respect for the family (including daughter and parents), and he was not dissuaded by her parents’ inquisition or interrogation of his intentions. This is notable in the sense that such dissuasion is often the very (un)conscious function of malevolent racial border patrolling behavior or a more overtly hostile, intentional racial regulation. Circling back to her use of the term colored, Tracy’s language may be surprising, if not offensive, given her dark skin and situational social location among collective blacks. Individuals in the collective black category can also produce colorblind discourses or “talk nasty about blacks.”85 However, the term colored is generally considered outdated and potentially offensive (depending on the usage, speaker, and target). Nevertheless, it is used commonly today in many parts of the United States.86 That Tracy casually uses the term suggests that she may have borrowed it from her mother (who is black and of an older generation that may have employed the term before it became historically anachronistic) or from the many white people in her social environment who may not see anything problematic about casual, common usage of the term. Alternately, she may hear the term used in her everyday life, in the media or elsewhere, depending on the demographics and geographies of race of the southern United States. The juxtaposition of this outdated language and an updated interpretation of relationships allowed Tracy to use these problematic terms

Ironic Interactions | 133

while participating in an interracial relationship. Ironically, many members of the collective black category might fear encountering or being peppered with such terms as colored when dating white people, yet it was Tracy who initiated and perpetuated the use of this problematic word. Otherwise stated, when Tracy deploys this problematic language to describe black people, she actualizes the very fear that she and other respondents express about white people. Despite a fear that white people may cause harm, Tracy upholds racist elements of language and patterns in the national conversation about race. She troubles the line between “us” and “them” by slipping into the usage of oppressive words. As a multiracial woman who uses the term colored, Tracy muddies the myth that people who use problematic racial language have a dislike for people of color or are opposed to interracial relationships. Her participation in this problematic language illustrates the difficulty in putting particular terms to rest or advancing and updating certain ideas. In saying troublesome things without the appearance of intending harm, or even having an awareness of the potential and actual injury of her chosen words, Tracy implicates herself in what some would see as linguistic violence;87 she becomes a version of internalized racism, herself an example of someone managing tensions between “brown skins and white minds.”88 Furthermore, she effectively and ironically symbolizes the potential hazards of dating someone with problematic racial ideologies, ones that she is presumed not to possess (as a brown woman/ person of color) but that are worrisome all the same. In contrast to earlier examples, including Peg’s, Tracy’s experience stands out for her clear lack of racial literacy, a literacy I mentioned earlier that is often misunderstood as an innate skill among people of colors.89 Tracy exemplifies the importance of drawing attention to the ways multiracial individuals perpetuate problematic language, or engage in “race talk.”90 Some of her comments also provide evidence of the ways that interracial relationships fail to facilitate racial literacy or enhance people’s understanding and knowledge of themselves and of racial difference. Other multiracial respondents of different racial combinations also encountered a policing of their identity and relationships. Sarah, a self-­identified “Anglo-­Indian” (white and Asian Indian) young woman who also embraced her stepfather’s Chinese and Malaysian identity,

134 | Ironic Interactions

encountered such invalidation and opposition not only from her own family but also from the mother of a boyfriend she dated in high school: I was taking my boyfriend to a Chinese New Year thing with my father. . . . His mother, she got mad about something and said, “You’re not taking my son to that Chinese shit!” or something, and it really hurt my feelings and made me feel embarrassed and ashamed that my family was different. And sometimes it was embarrassing that we all looked different and we have different last names . . . but now I don’t care.

That exchange not only exposed how her high school boyfriend’s mother felt about Chinese people but also revealed to Sarah her pride in Chinese culture and how much she valued her connections to that culture and to Chinese people. In addition, the mother also must not have recognized Sarah’s Asian identity and pan-­ethnicity. By “talking trash” about and disparaging Chinese New Year, the mother alienated and offended multiracial (white and Asian) Sarah, who has a Chinese stepfather. This double whammy of disqualification may explain why Sarah so enjoys the sincere emotional closeness with her current boyfriend and his family, all who “validate me or make me feel good.” While she was dating a multiracial man (also white and Asian), Sarah enjoyed being able to access Indian people, culture, and family life through this relationship and spending with his family, particularly the father, who is Indian. Since she had not met her biological father until recently, she allowed her boyfriend’s father to fulfill the role of the Indian father she hardly knew in life. “I’d go over to [their] house and I’d get all of my questions answered through him (the father). . . . I just became really close to him. That sounds really weird—­as a friend (she clarified). We just became very close. I love him. And he ended up paying for my plane ticket to India.” Framed as something of a surrogacy or sincere substitution, we can interpret the relationship between Sarah and her then boyfriend’s father as one that provided her with not only an emotional but also a cultural connection she longed for in the absence of her biological father, who is Indian. I end with Sarah’s example, as it is both painful and joyful. She was a delightful young woman to interview, with an evident sense of energy,

Ironic Interactions | 135

empathy, adventure, optimism, and an openness to others (even—­maybe especially—­closed-­minded ones). Sarah experiences racial mixture in her identity and relationships and has what I refer to elsewhere as a “twice-­blended” family. That is, her family’s composition shifted with her mother’s remarriage, and that process facilitated their family’s shifting mixture. These dynamic layers of mixture inform Sarah’s racial literacy and grow her understanding of how others’ regulation of her shapes her experiences with race and romance. Thus, when she hears harsh criticisms and racial stereotypes about Asian culture that are not specific to her own (Asian) ethnicity and heritage, she reacts because she claims a more expansive pan-­ethnic identity that embraces her stepfather’s different Asian ethnicity. She feels injured by the ignorance of others who presume an alliance with her; since she is so often seen as white, or implicitly white, others falsely imagine that her “one and only one” racial group membership and loyalty are to whiteness. Any affinities to racial groups beyond those bestowed upon her by birth, even those included in her inheritance, remain largely unseen. These (mis)perceptions of Sarah shape others’ assumptions about her loyalty, revealing the bias in the other (the viewer). As a multiracial woman with a protean identity (who identifies in a variety of ways and enjoys the complexity and flexibility of her identities), Sarah simultaneously encounters, evades, and even effectively confronts border patrolling.

Conclusion During my interview conversations, respondents shared with me their experiences negotiating their racial identity and partner choices with their families, as well with strangers. While their accounts of dealing with reactions from strangers were less surprising to me, their accounts of their parents’ efforts to guide them toward a particular set of choices and away from others surprised me, although perhaps I should not have been. Popular thinking might suggest that the parents of multiracial children would have experience negotiating color lines and with discussing race and romance with their children and others. Instead, the narratives of many of my respondents revealed a slightly different story: parents

136 | Ironic Interactions

often clumsily have conversations about race and romance with their children; they often lack the racial literacy so frequently normalized and naturalized for members of interracial families. Parents do not innately possess a facility with discussing race and racism (or even a desire to lead and lean into such conversations). In fact, most parents may not be very inclined to talk about race. Doing so may feel cumbersome, laborious, difficult, or heavy. Talking about race may generate a variety of responses. Parents who suffered any racial discrimination and antagonisms on individual, relational, or familial levels, as related to their interracial marriage, might be as eager to share lessons learned, as they are to avoid revisiting painful memories or any unsavory details of their current realities. However understandable the latter case remains, these silences slip into one generation from another and continue to shape social behavior despite sometimes never being named. As a result, parents often direct or guide their multiracial children toward or away from certain choices of romantic partners, and they do so to theoretically or potentially protect their multiracial children from racism and attendant injuries or as a way to secure or shore up racial privileges. Some parents encourage their children to make particular partner choices so that they avoid any further blending of racial borders. Curiously, in the range of ways that parents showed up, they could be seen as regulating their adult multiracial children’s racial identities and/ or their romantic partner choices. In effect, many respondents were again ostensibly “forced to choose” from a more limited range of options than what should have been available to them as racial identity options (because of their racial heritage) or available to anyone (because of their membership in a free society). As multiracial children growing up in interracial households, navigating color lines sometimes meant facing racial rejection or invalidation from the very place one might expect to find support: family. As families figure out their place within a racial hierarchy, they often make moves to access any or whatever racial privilege that they can. Where possible, families frequently attempt to position themselves closer to whiteness or honorary whiteness as one such way to achieve this goal. One unintended consequence of jockeying for a better position in the racial hierarchy is shifting the way the family, as a unit, understands itself racially. It may also potentially include invalidating any family

Ironic Interactions | 137

members’ racial identities not in alignment or congruent with the family unit. For multiracial people growing up in households and families that fail to validate or affirm their preferred identities, and/or regulate their romantic partner choices accordingly, these individuals can feel mismatched, marginal, or simply misunderstood. They may internalize the views of others and end up regulating their own racial identity options and romantic partner choices.

4

Intimate Interrogations

While many multiracial people anticipate, or have become accustomed to, racial interrogations and the curiosities of others, fewer might be equipped to navigate such racial regulation from an unexpected source: potential players and/or eventual actors in their romantic careers. Just like strangers, people who may be potential (or become actual) partners to multiracial people learn to police the borders of race. They do so as an attempt to clarify any racial ambiguity of a multiracial person. Any contestation that comes from this surprising source (including eventual and/or current romantic partners of multiracial people and/or members of multiracial people’s friendship networks) is often jarring, disorientating, and clarifying in a different way for the multiracial people who experience this regulation. Multiracial people appreciate when others accurately perceive them in alignment with their own self-­perception; they experience these interactions positively and as a form of self-­verification: “Because multiracial people view racial categories as arbitrary and flexible,1 they recognize that the racial labels applied to them by others may be unpredictable. As a result, multiracial people value interaction experiences in which others are accurate about their racial backgrounds.”2 In the context of intimate romantic relationships, this alignment or accuracy proves desirable. For multiracial people, looking to form an intimate romantic relationship with someone may be informed by a desire to find a loving partner who “gets” them.3 While developing an incipient interest in a person, many multiracial people are searching for someone who understands their racial reality and affirms their preferred racial identity. For multiracial individuals who discover that such a partner sees them in incongruous ways (in contrast to their preferred racial identity), they must now manage this invalidation and lack of self-­verification with their intimate partner. This can compound any regulation of race 138

Intimate Interrogations | 139

they are already facing from family members, friends, and/or strangers. What happens when multiracial people feel that their racially mixed heritage or parentage remains invisible or ignored such that their attendant multiracial identity remains invisible or difficult to see and thus difficult for others (including real or anticipated romantic partners) to affirm? How do they manage any of their in/visible mixture with others?

Encountering Regulation from Romantic Partners Multiracial people sometimes have social interactions with strangers who challenge their preferred racial identity and romantic partner choices. At times, it might be family members or friends who challenge multiracial people’s racial identity and/or romantic partner choices. Issuing these challenges adds a layer of complexity to multiracial people’s management of their racial identity, likely leaving them feeling confused about facing racial regulation from people they know and love. It is precisely because loved ones know more about the particularities of a multiracial person’s preferred racial identity that they are able to contest it in a specific (more nuanced) way. As romantic relationships develop, partners are (or should be) more familiar than strangers with the biographical nuances and details of their multiracial individuals; they should have greater insight into or understanding about the preferred racial identity of one another. Because romantic relationships should ideally be a space where intimacy is cultivated, said romantic partners should also be more protective of their respective significant others than would be expected from strangers. What happens during those moments when intimate romantic partners participate in the same sorts of regulation of race within their romantic relationship with a multiracial person? In focusing intentionally on the intimate romantic partners of multiracial people, I examine patterned responses by the latter about the former. This gives me a chance to illustrate how multiracial people manage any in/visible mixture, not only with those strangers and family members who express curiosity and possess questions aimed at clarifying ambiguity but also with romantic partners. In this chapter, I present a few examples of these challenges as they unfold in the lives of people on the fault lines of race.

140 | Intimate Interrogations

Playfully Painful Authenticity Tests Often, conversations about multiracial people’s racial identity and romantic partner choices are benign, allowing others to explore and satisfy their curiosity and interest in said multiracial people. At other times, these interactions reflect attempts to regulate race and romance or more intentional efforts by others to police the racial identity and partner choices of multiracial people. During my interview conversations with the respondents in my study, I heard a recurring theme as it relates to this regulation: many respondents reported sensing that they were being regulated in some way. At first, I was a bit surprised by the frequency of these experiences, especially stemming from many of the respondents’ respective romantic partner, as well as friends and (school) peers. While many of these interactions were potentially playful, others were interpreted as contestations of multiracial people’s preferred racial identity, their racially mixed heritage, and their romantic partner choice(s). Let’s return to Campbell, a black and white biracial woman whom I previously discussed in chapter 3. With features that approximate whiteness in people’s estimation, as well as ones that hint at her blackness, she is often regarded as racially ambiguous. Consequently, Campbell confidently considers her appearance “desirable.” Friends of hers use racialized humor (i.e., joking that she did not get her posterior from her white mother) to authenticity test her. Their humor runs the risk of naturalizing race and normalizing the association of race with (the presence or absence of) particular physical features.4 Arguably, it is Campbell’s confidence, athleticism, and beauty that positively attract the attention of others. Her beauty likely invites this attention and provokes other “invitations,” including ones by men strangers asking her to “have a baby” with them (notably a theme consistent across many of my interview conversations with multiracial women with known black ancestry). Her looks presumably invite them to make other irrational grand gestures of sexualized desire, the moves themselves a bit stereotypical, as they endorse other controlling images or troublesome tropes (including the presumption of “pretty babies” as an obvious iteration and perpetuation of the “exotic” Other).5 Since Campbell reportedly has “heard it all—­everything,” she maintains a cool nonchalance about others’ attention. Her nonchalance

Intimate Interrogations | 141

normalizes multiracial people (and multiracial women in particular) eliciting or provoking this kind of hyper-­heterosexualized attention from others. In addition, this attention advances troublesome tropes about men while upholding the mythology of exceptional multiracial beauty.6 These interactions also speak to the way multiracial women may regard these conversations and comments as “compliments” rather than as sites and examples of harassment.7 In myriad ways, Campbell’s appearance is read as a putative cause for celebration and/or a provocation for attention. In the latter case, it is not solely strangers but school peers, friends, and romantic partners as well. Based on her accounts, many of her social peers tease her about her racial identity or, more likely, her (presumably poor) performance of race.8 This jocularity can be read as typical adolescent behavior, as well as a kind of authenticity testing; both (implicitly innocuous and insidiously hostile or microaggressive) practices risk invalidating her preferred racial identity (not to mention proving more generally harmful or injurious).9 Even in her romantic relationship, Campbell described ways her boyfriend participates in this racialized teasing. Although not every respondent handled similar situations smoothly or effortlessly, Campbell seemed to handle things in stride. This contrasts with respondents who reported feeling sad or hurt by their partner’s misunderstanding of them. Particularly injurious were refusals to accommodate or affirm the multiracial person’s preferred racial identity. Such accommodation and affirmation convey racial literacy and empathy, the former speaking to a recognition of a range of racial identity options and the latter (knowing the importance of) making space for a partner’s preferred racial identity. Racial literacy facilitates successful racial navigations, including intimate and/or casual conversations about race, racial identity, and racism; that is, racial literacy makes more facile or light(er) any difficulty of doing this race work.10 Successful interactions include ones in which people walk away from such conversations feeling seen and heard. Affirming multiracial people’s identities is often misunderstood as elevating them (placing them above others). As a result, respondents like Campbell were teased as thinking they are “better than” others. The history and legacy of white supremacy largely frame this view. As discussed in the previous chapter, multiracial people are frequently (mis)perceived

142 | Intimate Interrogations

favorably, seen as superior and desirable, occupying a privileged position in the beauty queue. Authenticity tests, teasing, and other practices reflect efforts to reject these mythologies and interrupt these racial ideologies. These efforts may be lost on multiracial people who merely experience these efforts as a backlash to the unearned advantages that many multiracial people accrue as a result of this slanted way of seeing.

From Racial Literacy to Racial Fluency A partner’s racial literacy reflects the ability to understand race, racialized experiences, and racialized structures, as well as structural racism; this literacy can serve as something like what I call a “racial litmus test,” a mechanism for ensuring that one’s partner is not only emotionally supportive but also familiar enough with some of the challenges to growing up multiracial and living in a racially divisive world. A higher level or idealized form of racial literacy is racial fluency. Racial fluency is a more sophisticated and sociological understanding of the way that “race makes the world go ’round.”11 Racial fluency might arguably even include a rudimentary understanding of intersectionality such that one’s racial literacy is always already intersectional and critical (literacy).12 Critical race literacies become fluency in their higher forms. Such fluency equips people with the tools to navigate conversations of race. Within relationships, critical race fluency enhances people’s ability to respond more effectively, if not empathically or compassionately, to one another. For example, if a multiracial person shared an experience of identity invalidation or intensified racism, critical race literacy allows for that conversation with minimal additional invalidation or injuries. Racial literacy and fluency facilitate conversations between multiracial people and their romantic partners; it enables individuals in romantic relationships to offer support around each other’s racialized experiences (as well as gendered, classed, and other socially informed realities given the importance of these intersections and their impact on social lives). Racial literacy can massage tense social situations. It proves beneficial as a social skill, an almost necessary one in contemporary society. For many, racial literacy can be a requisite skill or necessary characteristic in both the person and in the dynamics of the romantic relationship (even a friendship). That is, although not specifically named as such by my

Intimate Interrogations | 143

respondents, racial literacy is the quality they narrated as a deep desire in their eventual or actual partner possessing. Many multiracial respondents reportedly had identity-­invalidating interactions with numerous others. In response, they sought social support and emotional understanding from their intimate romantic partner, which, when given, they appreciated as gestures of empathy. Racial literacy helps partners to mutually express concern or signaling support of one another; this literacy leads, when woven through meaningful communication, to avoiding the contours of colorblindness or dodging the reticence or refusal to engage race through colormuteness. It also signals reciprocal racial understanding, which consequently can build trust and intimacy among partners. Juanita was one such respondent who made clear her need for a racially literate—­if not fluent—­romantic partner. Her partner had to “get” her and really understand her racial reality, including the everyday ways in which race and racism shape her life. Without this understanding, her romantic partner would fail to fully appreciate Juanita’s multiracial experience. As a racially ambiguous multiracial woman, Juanita is frequently misrecognized as a member of any number of different racial and ethnic groups (that people perceive her to belong to). The malleability and ambiguity of her multiracial identity mean that others sometimes shift her mixture. That is, they locate her in racial and ethnic categories to which she does not lay claim. Others’ racial misrecognition of Juanita complicates the experiences she has as she deals with external reactions to her appearance, racial identity, and partner choice. She also manages any internal conflict that emerges from being in a loving partnership with men who claim a singular racial option for themselves. Juanita describes some of the difficulties of dating. In her relationship with a black man (whose preferred racial identity as black is congruent with his appearance and others’ perception of him), Juanita navigates and negotiates race regularly. In the following, she shares an example of a friend’s response to her romantic relationship: Well, I have one friend [she’s Mexican and black] that—­every time I have a problem with a guy I’m seeing, she’s like, “He’s black.” She feels like, “You have these problems because they’re black. You need to try and find

144 | Intimate Interrogations

someone more like you.” Well, she just feels like it should be somebody that’s at least multiracial, whatever that may be. . . . She feels like [a multiracial person] would have that understanding.

These comments hint at the importance of racial literacy (“that understanding”) in romantic relationships; Juanita’s friend presumes that having a shared identity as multiracial—­rather than having one with critical race literacies and fluency—­would be ideal for Juanita. Speculatively, if Juanita dated someone who validated her multiracial identity, she might have more rewarding or fulfilling experiences. That is, her friend suspects that some of Juanita’s relationship problems pertain to real and imagined differences between the couple, friction that surfaces from ideological and experiential differences and contrasting paths as they move through the world. The friend estimates that another multiracial person would share greater mutual understanding than a singularly black man. Here, Juanita’s multiracial identity and her partner’s black identity are constructed as different, very different, or different enough that it diminishes, if not disappears, the space between that is shared. Accordingly, the couples’ individual racial realities are presumed to be so different as to remain divergent from (never convergent with) one another. One part affirming, another part invalidating, and yet another essentializing, the comments Juanita’s friend made speaks to the complexity of multiraciality. Despite attempts, affirming or validating a multiracial person’s identity can easily backfire. In this case, it may have been misinterpreted, effectively becoming an invalidation of identity. As it occurred in Juanita’s case, her multiracial identity was validated at the expense of her blackness, one of the very composite parts of her multiraciality. As the friend offers advice to Juanita (to find an understanding partner), she advances an idea that flattens out the multidimensionality of multiraciality—­that there is coherence within the “two or more races” population, despite the more than sixty possible racial combinations that constitute this group. Additionally, the suggestion or advice ignores any overlapping or shared knowledge between Juanita and her black partner, given that Juanita claims blackness in her heritage and identity. It also obscures the reality that some multiracial people experience social life in better alignment with (and even as) members of singular racial

Intimate Interrogations | 145

groups. The advice ultimately fails as it assumes that multiracial people, despite the plethora of possibilities in their lived experiences and racial identity options, are more alike than not. As the scholarship on multiracial people attempts to point out, a rich and robust variation exists within and across the national population, and this includes multiracial people. In addition, and at first glance, Juanita’s friend could appear to be taking an anti-­black stance in her advice, given that she cites blackness as (at least partial) explanation for any miscommunication and misunderstanding Juanita experiences in her relationships. Upon further inspection, one could argue, the friend’s suggestion underscores the importance of finding “like others,” a pattern that plays out in most relationships.13 Developing a romantic relationship with someone who also identifies as racially mixed may create more of a bridge between shared experiences. However, what mixture would be best suited for someone of “two or more races,” as Juanita is? According to this (the friend’s) racial logic, the two would be better able to exchange their experiences with one another and presumably understand or relate to those experiences, based on them both being multiracial. However, this assumption overlooks racial differences among people who identify as multiracial. Some of these differences include variations in racial combination and particular mixtures in parentage and heritage, preferred racial identity, and differences in lived experiences at the intersections of race, gender, class, sexuality, age, nationality, and other factors. As the literature on multiracial identity options illustrates, for example, Juanita and her imagined ideal (read: multiracial) partner might both have the same parentage (black, white, and Native American). However, she might choose a protean identity (claiming all three), while he chooses a singular racial identity (black, white, or Native American but not all three, not even two).14 In this way (hypothetically speaking), romantically partnering with a multiracial person does not necessarily ensure a shared racial identity, even amid similar parentage or heritage. Neither does such partnership guarantee a shared racial reality. Instead, the aforementioned quality of racial empathy and a cultivated racial literacy and fluency would facilitate the understanding that many multiracial people like Juanita see as requisite criteria in a romantic partner. This departs from and de-­essentializes the notion that multiracial people

146 | Intimate Interrogations

always already possess particular sets of knowledge (predicated on their multiraciality). Juanita does not easily agree with or adopt her friend’s advice or position. Rather, she interrogates the notion of the ease or imagined immediacy of a “multiracial connection” when she punctuates her observation (“that it should be somebody that’s at least multiracial”) with the contemplative contestation “whatever that may be.” Here Juanita pauses to interrogate the discourses of racial mixture, including (1) the presumed alliances or affinities assumed to be had by anyone seen as “multiracial” and (2) a way that “multiracial” may make reference to some, but not all, kinds of racial mixture. Juanita’s comments work to interrogate these discursive patterns and practices; they disrupt what she may see as a kind of “hegemonic racial mixture,” the way people default to seeing mixture in black and white and/or presume that racial similarity means familiarity or more easily creates connection. It is this feature, of seeing “beyond black and white” and being able to be seen, that marks a pattern in her interview conversation and that of others. Juanita craves being seen by others—­including potential or actual partners—­in her full complexity, even if that complexity seems like an “impossibility” to others. She wants others to recognize and respect her racial and ethnic multiplicity in its dimensionality. A desire to be seen as multiracial can be complicated, or compromised even, when one is seen as “anything but multiracial” or any of the plethora of (positive and problematic) ways. These possibilities include being seen as belonging to multiple racial groups, including those beyond the ones to which multiracial people want to be seen as belonging (or would claim for themselves, based on their known parentage or heritage). Juanita also pauses to pensively examine the way that dominant narratives of racially mixed people have constructed members of this population as members of the multiracial population, or of a group that is decidedly different or distinct from members of the national population. This extends a critique issued by scholars who launch similar criticisms around the social construction of “multiracial” as unique and distinct from people who claim singular racial identities.15 Pointing out some paradoxes of “Generation Mix” works to “challenge multiracial identity”

Intimate Interrogations | 147

or reveal multiraciality as mythology.16 Spencer also argues that claiming a multiracial identity works in service of white supremacy.17 What rests in Juanita’s contestation of this essentialized multiracial connection is a refutation of the idea that being racially mixed innately creates or naturally ensures racial literacy or racial fluency, a shared understanding of what it means to be mixed. Multiracial people of the same racial background(s) sometimes fall out of the racial categories that constitute their background and fall into others outside of their parentage and heritage.18 This means that even two people with the same racial parentage can assert the same and/ or different preferred racial identities and that they can have completely different phenotypic appearances and consequently experience the world differently, contingent on how they look and how others perceive them. In addition, some multiracial people develop such close relationships to people outside of their own racial groups that, through these connections and an embedded belonging in diverse families and communities, they cultivate racial literacy reflective of the knowledge and understanding they gain being in relation to people of various racial identities, backgrounds, and experiences. They may enjoy “honorary memberships” as a result of these relationships.19 These sorts of memberships mean that a multiracial person (e.g., with black and white parentage) might just as easily relate to a Latinx person or an Asian person if the experience of the multiracial person is that they are misread as Latinx or Asian and/or if the multiracial person has sustained contact and meaningful interactions with members of these different racial groups.20 Any differences at the intersections of race, gender, class, nationality, and more (yielding differences between people) are not always bridged by (multi)racial similarities. Instead, they may be further complicated by any number of variations in racial combinations. Notably, Juanita is able to question her friend’s racial essentialism if only because Juanita slips into and out of any number of racial and ethnic groups. For her, being racially ambiguous and multiracial means experiencing shifting mixture, or socially shifting into various racial groups and inhabiting multiple racial social locations simultaneously. The process of shifting mixture generates knowledge about what it means, in part, to hold

148 | Intimate Interrogations

memberships in more than one racial group; it arguably builds (1) racial empathy, as a response to being misidentified or simply from managing racial mixture in a racially divisive society, and (2) racial fluency, which reflects experiential knowledge that stems from navigating life on the borderlands. It is important to acknowledge that this knowledge, “la facultad,” can be cultivated, and it can come naturally: The capacity to see in the surface phenomena the meaning of deeper realities, to see the deep structure below the surface. It is an instant “sensing,” a quick perception arrived at without conscious reasoning. It is an acute awareness mediated by the part of the psyche that does not speak, that communicates in images and symbols which are the daces of faces of feelings, that is, behind which feelings reside/hide.21

It is not only innate (like Anzaldúa’s “la facultad”) or felt (like intuition) but also nurtured through meaningful conversations. Thus, the relationship between being and knowing is an intricate one. A person can claim membership and belonging in certain racial groups while also knowing about and understanding crucial details of other people’s racial realities. This disrupts the idea that one can only know one’s own racial group (and this knowledge operates like an in-­group bias or quality, if you will). Instead, it acknowledges individuals who make an effort to learn about others in a more formal way (who purposefully become more racially literate) or who learn through meaningful encounters and interactions, through more casual and everyday routes and relationships. I elaborate upon Juanita’s narratives in this chapter, as they capture the experiences of many multiracial people in my study. She was among the few respondents who effectively translated her particular experience in ways that speak to broader patterns. Her experience illuminates a set of concerns shared by many of my respondents. Amid these concerns were fears that they may be fetishized and exoticized for their racial identities and backgrounds or have their racial multiplicity flattened into singularity. They spoke to concerns about how to communicate feeling invalidated or, as is discussed next, managing a partner’s refusal to accept their multiracial partner as such.

Intimate Interrogations | 149

Partners Policing In/Visible Mixture Other respondents, like Juanita, sometimes felt similarly misunderstood by those close to them. For example, Miki, a white and Asian multiracial woman, described how friends, family, and significant others attempted to regulate her racial identity. She reported experiences that suggested she was being “whitened” or “whitewashed” by friends, despite her attempts to assert and maintain a multiracial identity.22 Miki made maneuvers to maintain her “quarter Japanese” identity, which her in/ visible mixture complicated. In the process of discussing her romantic career, Miki noted (about her current relationship at the time of the interview) that her boyfriend, who is white, remained unsupportive of her multiracial parentage. Miki’s multiracial identity was incipient, which she appeared ambivalent or tentative about claiming enthusiastically. While she acknowledged her Japanese heritage, she seemed much more at ease with and preferred whiteness; she has what some might call a “thick” white identity and a “thin” Asian identity.23 As a result, Miki might even be seen as “passing for white.” If this is the case, she does so passively, since she does discursively name her Japanese heritage. Miki continued to describe her boyfriend’s staunch refusal to accept her multiraciality, to see her as racially mixed. “He’s one of those people that, whenever I say anything about it, he says, ‘You’re not Japanese. You’re white.’ So that’s frustrating. And I’m always talking about it lately, usually about my grandma. . . . He always says it back. He just laughs it off.” One might categorize this comment as a form of identity invalidation.24 Beyond that, there is a palpable air of toxicity characteristic of both hegemonic whiteness and masculinity that work to colonize Miki’s body and the terms of her own identity. Unable to have a sincere conversation with him about this topic, Miki expressed disappointment at his discomfort with her preferred (multiracial) racial identity. She felt frustration at his reluctance or refusal to embrace her multiracial identity. She disliked his opposition to her naming, claiming, and embracing her racial difference and specifically her nonwhiteness. One has to wonder what Miki’s white boyfriend has to lose, or what is at stake, when Miki claims her racial mixture rather than singular

150 | Intimate Interrogations

whiteness. Is her boyfriend as invested in the illusive and implicit whiteness of his (multiracial) girlfriend as he is in their (interracial) relationship? His insistence on the (albeit illusive) whiteness of race and romance here is striking yet unsurprising as white supremacy is a hell of a drug. As a white man, Miki’s boyfriend likely knows that he occupies a dominant position in society, his group membership within whiteness affording him numerous unearned white privileges that he can individually enjoy. To sustain or even maximize said privileges, he must maintain the illusion of whiteness relationally as well. This only begins to explain his deep investment in the fiction that Miki is white and not at all Japanese. What Miki’s comments suggest is that her boyfriend sustains his possessive investment in whiteness as property25 largely through his regulation and racial border patrolling of her racial identity; he polices the boundaries of race around her and his inability to affirm Miki’s Asian parentage and her preferred identity. Perhaps he views the two of them as white because he is invested in maintaining the mythology of whiteness-­ as-­purity. Collective investments in this whiteness-­as-­purity mythology continue, despite evidence to the contrary.26 Miki’s multiraciality arguably compromises that imagined white racial purity. Miki’s boyfriend seems unable to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that results from any such resistance or even ambivalence Miki expresses regarding embracing white racial privilege. That he is willing to encourage her to deny or reject her racial mixture also illustrates his awareness of what she might lose, as well as what he might lose by association. In this way, multiraciality is framed as a penalty, not a currency. Any claims that Miki publicly makes to her racial mixture (or making her white and Asian parentage known) may result in her potentially compromising any white privilege she enjoys as a white-­adjacent, or implicitly white, multiracial person. In acknowledging her multiraciality, Miki also potentially compromises any racial privilege as a member of a couple that may appear white to others, even to her partner. That is, in her partner’s opinion, Miki could be seen as relinquishing or surrendering some of that access to white privilege, both individually and relationally. Making claims to racial multiplicity may erode any advantages of being implicitly white.

Intimate Interrogations | 151

The preceding example shows the significance of relational identities, or identities shared by and built interactionally among couples. Miki’s partner’s comments indicate his disinvestment in the idea of them as an “interracial” couple. Instead, they speak to his investment in them as a “white” couple. Their differing views on her racial identity make it possible that she sees hers as an “interracial” relationship, and he seems the same relationship, but from his vantage position and position of white privilege, he sees his as a racially homogeneous one involving “whites only.” Ironically, although Miki held much of a colorblind viewpoint throughout the interview, claiming not to notice if a romantic relationship she developed was interracial or not, she nevertheless reported seeing her and her (white) partner as an interracial couple, just as he saw them as a white couple. Without interviewing him, it is difficult to know how Miki’s boyfriend arrives at his views of her. Does he see her through a “white like me” lens,27 in a neutral way, or in a colorblind way? Does he see her as white out of a desire to close the racial gap or any perceived social distance between them and therefore (re)constructs her as (singularly) white? That Miki’s boyfriend sees her as white also supports the literature on honorary whiteness28 and the “expanding boundaries of whiteness.”29 His insistence on her whiteness begins to explain why and how white and Asian multiracial people often become honorary whites. Miki may “jeopardize” this honorary white membership in his eyes by persistently saying she is multiracial rather than white. Even though Miki is white, she is also multiracial. She wants her mixture to be recognized; she makes her mixture visible by verbally reminding him and others of her racially mixed heritage. She complicates her own identity and destabilizes both her own whiteness and any honorary whiteness she enjoys by vocalizing and situationally yet strategically making claims to her known Asian ancestry. Miki’s experience in her romantic relationship informs and influences her in numerous ways. I pick up this discussion in chapter 5 to consider how the insistence on whiteness, and even its idealization throughout history and society, encourages an internalized racism that results in Miki engage in much of the malevolent behavior her boyfriend perpetrates onto her. In the following, I briefly illustrate some of the ways that whiteness permeates relational and individual identities.

152 | Intimate Interrogations

Following the concept of “his” and “her” marriages,30 consider two possible views of the same relationship, the “his” and “her” versions that differ accordingly. In “his” version, the boyfriends in Miki’s romantic career have primarily considered their respective relationships “white” (see figure 4.1): one deviation of the previous equation or one exception to “his” version of their relationship would occur, as Miki notes, if her partner selectively or strategically chose to acknowledge her, albeit partial, Asian ancestry. Then, the two would be in a situationally interracial relationship, whereby their racial differences would result in a different racial equation (see figure 4.2). In the earlier scenario, the individual racial identity of the multiracial person is one factor that informs whether the relational identity is “interracial”; if (or as) the multiracial person’s individual racial identity shifts (as in the case of a preferred protean identity), so, too, does the relational identity shift. This accounts for the situational quality or characteristic of these relationships as they are contingent on individual racial identity. What contrasts with the preceding equation is one whereby his individual racial identity is white, hers is Asian, and the relational racial identity that results is arguably interracial (at least on the basis of preferred racial identity; see figure 4.3). How do scholars account for any overlapping or shared racial heritage between a person who claims a singular white identity and one who claims a singular Asian identity (with known white parentage)? How do individuals in these actual relationships resolve these equations, find answers to these questions? In instances when others acknowledge Miki’s Asian ancestry, her otherness (e.g., “Japanese cool”) curiously operates as both racial contamination and racial currency and appears in this way (see figure 4.4). This “his” version (figure 4.4) then aligns with Miki’s view of herself in a relationship with a white man, such as her then partner. She describes what sounds like a “thick” white identity31 yet recognizes (and wants others’ recognition of) her Asian parentage as well. Unlike people with known African ancestry, people with some Asian ancestry, like Miki, can vocalize or make this heritage known to most people without becoming singularly Asian. She, and others like her, can refer to her Asian ancestry and parentage as a kind of spice, an “exotic” flavor added to her vanilla whiteness.32 This way of engaging in

Singular (White) Identity

Multiracial and Chooses Singular (White) Identity

SameRace/SharedRace (White) Relationship

Figure 4.1. “His” View of Individual Racial Identity (his: white; hers: white) and Relational Race (implicitly white couple)

Singular (White) Identity

Multiracial and Chooses a Protean Identity

Situationally Interracial Relationship

Figure 4.2. “His” View of Individual Racial Identity and Relational Race as Interracial (a situationally interracial relationship)

Singular (White) Identity

Multiracial and Chooses Singular (Asian) Identity

Interracial Relationship

Figure 4.3. “His” View of Individual Racial Identity (his: white; hers: Asian) and Relational Race (interracial couple)

Singular (White) Identity

Multiracial and Chooses Border or Protean Identity

Interracial Relationship?

Figure 4.4. “His” View of Individual Racial Identity (his: white; hers: mostly white, sometimes Asian) and Relational Race (white couple; racially mixed couple)

154 | Intimate Interrogations

auto-­Orientalism proved problematic to the degree that her boyfriend then denied her racial mixture and specifically her Asian heritage. Miki’s boyfriend reassigned her to a racial category (white) in what seemed like attempts to benefit from the currency of whiteness and lightness. Perhaps, more generously, he also did so to lessen the social distance between them created by their socially constructed racial differences. These interactions expose how whiteness is socially constructed as Miki negotiates being both white and not white,33 while her boyfriend works to preserve her whiteness, his whiteness, and their whiteness as a couple.34 Despite her boyfriend’s imputation of whiteness on her, Miki engaged in her own version of beneficiary border patrolling, since she does not think of her relationships as “interracial.” While my point here is not that she should think of them as such, the fact that she claims she has not even thought about the racial dynamic of her relationship suggests a few things: perhaps her multiracial identity is indeed incipient, in that she is slowly coming into that identity and realizing how doing so compromises some of the privileges of her (formerly) white identity. Alternately, Miki may be more aware of the advantages of being white than she is willing to indicate in the interview. Her awareness might motivate her to minimize the importance of race in any of her relationships, romantic or not (as indicated by her minimization of others’ attention). As a feminist researcher, I felt a bit of discomfort in hearing that Miki’s boyfriend allegedly thought of her Japanese parentage and heritage as “cool” yet continued to invalidate her multiracial identity, based on her accounts. It appeared as if he was only comfortable accommodating her racial difference as a fetish rather that fully embracing and celebrating the “sum of her parts.”35 Speculatively, it is this kind of identity invalidation that easily sets the stage for the dissolution of, or tensions within, a romantic relationship. Miki might come to resent the whitewashing of her racial identity and of their relational identity in years to come. Conversely, she may be on the way to more fully “becoming white.”36 Throughout most of our interview conversation, Miki remained relatively colorblind and colormute. The few times she explicitly elaborated about race, and specifically about her experiences with racism, was in discussing her boyfriend’s whitewashing of her racial identity and being made fun of for being multiracial. Interestingly, even as Miki is directly experiencing racism, she attempts to minimize it:

Intimate Interrogations | 155

The only negative experience that I’ve had is just friends really, just picking at me for it. Not trying to be mean, I don’t think, but really it did hurt my feelings. . . . Like my friend has called me “Chink,” and you know, I’m like—­and really, I’ve been like, “That’s not funny.” And she’ll say, “I’m just kidding around.” And that was when we were younger. I don’t think that she means to be mean. I don’t know why. I just think, like when I tell people that I’m Asian, they say, “You’re not Asian. Why do you consider yourself Asian? You’re just white.” And I’m like, you know, that’s kind of frustrating because I don’t feel like I’m just white. You know what I mean? “Why can’t you accept me one-­quarter Japanese? Because that’s what I am.” But it’s usually my white friends who are like that, too. [Miki laughs.]

Some of Miki’s friends also occasionally and inappropriately fetishized her for being part Japanese and/or interacted with her based on stereotypical images of Asians: Some of my friends are like, “Can I meet your grandma?” . . . or “Can you make us some sushi?” Things like . . . There’s only been positive. Sometimes there’s been negative, mostly at home, like the comments. I don’t know if they’re trying to be mean or funny, but like, you know, “Do you speak Japanese?” “Will you make me some sushi?” That kind of thing. “Do you like rice?” But it’s like, it’s not funny, you know.

The incoherence that evolved as Miki discussed these experiences capture her ambivalence about having her friends express a sincere interest in exploring her Japanese culture in one moment and hurtfully teasing her about it in another. “It’s poking fun. It’s both; you get kind of a mixture” (emphasis added). I am not sure if Miki realized that she wove this metaphor into her response, but I found the double entendre notable: being racially mixed produced mixed responses from friends who both accepted and rejected her multiracial identity and multicultural heritage. More important, Miki pointed out that being border patrolled by friends can be both positive and negative, depending on the speaker and their intention. Miki posited, “Yeah, and you [generally] know the difference.” Much like other respondents, Miki suggests that there is a part of her that simply has to deal with some of the hurtful things that her friends say.

156 | Intimate Interrogations

Recall, if you will, Campbell describing a similar strategy for managing other people’s perceptions and disparaging comments about her. Campbell, Miki, and others appear to be accommodating of this racially regulating or borderist behavior, in part because they have made explicit claims to racial mixture that are often rejected or invalidated. In turn, they find it “easier” to appear unaffected by such problematic policing of their racial borders than to continue challenging the border-­patrolling practices of others. The narratives of many of these respondents reveal the affective labor that they must engage in to negotiate these social interactions. Within their romantic relationships, performing this affective labor may get burdensome and tiresome, with multiracial members in such social situations potentially growing weary and dissatisfied with the expectation of their accommodation (of this dynamic). What these narratives reveal is the space for (potential, eventual, or actual) partners to avoid expecting their partners to perform this affective labor and instead allow them to assert their preferred racial identity without contestation. Peg, a white and Asian multiracial woman, shared similar stories about the lack of identity validation she faced. She observed: “I remember my first relationship where my identity was like, it wasn’t there [it was invisible/undetectable], where my ex-­boyfriend and I got into an argument and it was something that I experienced, like a racist incident. I don’t recall but I do remember that I was upset and um, for him he thought this would comfort me. He was just like, ‘But I don’t see you as a minority.’ And the thing is I said to him, I told him, ‘No, but I want you to see me as a minority. Don’t you know what I mean?’” According to Peg, this boyfriend probably perceived her as “like white” or “the acceptable one to bring home to the family.” I think he got it, in the sense of I am a minority, but I don’t think he got it in like, the whole aspects of like, you know, just how I’m going to be treated. It was almost like I’m a minority, just like physical, and that’s it. But like all the other things that go along with these physical attributes I think he just [ignored].” Peg’s description suggested that this boyfriend detached or displaced meaning from her race and only chose to recognize her race in superficial ways rather than meaningful ones that shaped their relationship and individual experiences.

Intimate Interrogations | 157

Other respondents noted how they handled such contestation within their wider social networks, including in their friendship circles that expanded because of their involvement in a romantic relationship (which introduced them to their partner’s set of friends). Sarah described an experience of being border patrolled but by proxy. Sarah felt forced to confront border patrolling from her “all-­the-­way-­white” (“not multiracial” or part-­white multiracial) boyfriend’s friend. This friend alluded to the contamination of blackness (specifically in reference to Sarah’s sister’s boyfriend) and held a problematic view of racial “purity and danger.”37 He held onto the false logic of white innocence and purity and black criminality, dirt, and pollution. Ideologies of white superiority and dominance allow these views to persist and to persist unchallenged (primarily by whites). Another man who Sarah dated “would say really mean things about my sister. He’d say, ‘Oh, your sister would be so fine if she didn’t be with black guys’ [sic]. Just really, really racist things like that. He thought she is making a mistake, is disgusting. It makes her not as pretty or not as good.” Scholars find support for this view of “contaminating blackness,” noting people make persistent associations between blackness with dirt and filth, even poor smells, while viewing whiteness as good, pretty, and desirable.38 This dichotomous way of seeing race remains troublesome in its oversimplification of race and in its positive associations with whiteness and negative associations with blackness. This view of contaminated blackness actually can (ideologically) contaminate many people’s view of black people. In another one of her previous romantic relationships, Sarah had this conversation with her boyfriend’s mother, who wondered, “‘So what kind of “black” is your sister’s boyfriend? How dark is his skin? Is it . . . (naming all of these colors)?’ I knew what she was getting at, like is he light-­skinned?” Sarah challenged this backstage racism by pointedly asking similar questions of the woman’s husband: I just did it right back to her [interrogating and peppering her with questions]: “How white is he? What kind of white is he? What does he look like?” People just don’t realize they’re doing it. . . . Like why would it make a difference? If he was as black as black or as . . . it’s like . . . it’s just racist

158 | Intimate Interrogations

to me. Like how—­if only she knew that the guy my sister is having a baby with is a professional football player; you know he’s got great genes; he’s educated. But nooo, that doesn’t matter. It’s, “How black is he?”

In defending her sister and her sister’s boyfriend (which the following example illustrates), Sarah inadvertently perpetuates a popular stereotype of blacks (as athletically inclined), although she refers to his professional status as an athlete to counter other stereotypes that cast black people as “unemployed,” “lazy,” or generally unsuccessful. Her reference to genetics also runs the risk of naturalizing athletic abilities, making taut the tension between “brain versus brawn” and “nature versus nurture.” Fortunately, Sarah’s “brain versus brawn” argument also involves more of a “brain and brawn” stance, which better exemplified her antiracist position. However, to make her overarching point that black people are equal to whites, as opposed to inferior to them, Sarah also participates in a discursive practice that inadvertently advances the idea of exceptional blackness. The well-­educated professional black man avoids the stereotype threat while reproducing the stereotype of black people being lazy or lacking in initiative or the desire to work hard (“He’s educated”). She provided yet another instance of her own antiracist stance when dealing with people’s racism: A guy says he can’t stand black people and I just said, “Please, can we spend some time together?” because I wanted to try to change his mind. He goes, “Well, I want to try to change your mind.” And I go, “That’s fine.” I’m trying not to not like him because I didn’t want to be what he was. So it was trying to find a way. . . . “Some day, you’re going to go to the ER and a black person’s going to save your life.” “Well, then, he won’t be a n-­word,” he said. It’s irritating and I think it gets to a point where some people you can’t change the way maybe—­their parents raised them or what they’re being ignorant about. I just kind of blow it off unless it’s something real offensive. I don’t laugh at racist jokes and stuff like that. I don’t like it. . . . We were at dinner last night with the guy I’m sort of dating, and his friend said, “Yeah, your sister’s gonna have a niglet.”

The inflammatory epithet (“niglet”), which ostensibly merges the “n-­ word” and piglet, betrays the racial etiquette preferred in contemporary

Intimate Interrogations | 159

society. The persistent practice of colorblind racism frowns on such explicit examples of white supremacy. Instead, colorblindness and colormuteness encourage and reward the practice of smiling or benevolent racism,39 or cordial racism.40 That is, the language of colorblindness and race talk allows for people to perpetuate or communicate their racist ideologies through humor but dissuades people, at least when in public, to say explicitly racist and hostile things.41 Notably, the views of Sarah and her friend appear, in some ways, to be two sides of the same coin, or they exemplify how one perception can prove to be a double-­edged sword. Notice that both Sarah and her friend make room for exceptions: the exceptional black person, the superstar athlete, the medical doctor who saves lives, the highly educated intellectual. Sarah presents the “exceptionally black” people, or this version of blackness, as a way to counter or challenge her friend’s racism; his version (or perception of blackness) only accommodates the exception rather than the rule (in his social world, only “exceptional” black people can be tolerated or accommodated, while “everyday” blacks, arguably more stereotypical in their behavior, will likely be rejected). Either way, the attention to the exception (exceptional blackness) draws attention away from any parallels with whites as it insists on black excellence for survival. It also accommodates, even as it ignores, white mediocrity in its banality. Sarah’s friend appears to be so averse to blackness that he would (1) insult her sister’s unborn/hypothetical multiracial black baby and (2) only see black people as human when they are serving him or literally saving his life, in this hypothetical medical scenario. The incident described earlier reportedly incensed and “really, really hurt” Sarah to the point of her freezing, or being shocked into silence. “I just didn’t know what to do so I just sat there. And I’m always the life of the party and I just didn’t say anything. It was so offensive to me.” If there is any benefit to being exposed to such explicit racist ideologies, or being racially border patrolled through backstage racism,42 perhaps it involves being called into action. Sarah moved from initial shock to an eventual response that involved becoming antiracist. Encountering this racism inspired intentional action in the direction of antiracism. Practicing antiracism or becoming antiracist may inspire individuals to interrogate racist comments (their own and that of others) and engage in difficult dialogs about race and racism or vocalize opposition

160 | Intimate Interrogations

to racism (when not traumatized into silence). Facing race and racism allows white and light-­skinned multiracial people to put some of their racial privilege43 in service of their darker-­skinned counterparts to activate alliances and participate in dismantling systems of oppression. That Sarah challenges white racism despite feeling silenced and alienated by her friend illustrates the agency that everyone possesses and that she expresses. Sarah demonstrates how she actively challenges racism and the presumed alliances that whites anticipate from her, particularly when they perceive her as white. When she takes an antiracist stand to confront racial inequality, Sarah disrupts two-­faced racism and the racist rhetorical devices deployed to express it. Her vantage point as a white-­ appearing honorary white woman gives her more leverage in that she is less likely to be seen as “complaining about racism” and more likely to be heard and respected.44 In approximating whiteness, Sarah can be seen as looking white but arguably becomes less so both when she claims her preferred (multiracial) identity and when she explicitly confronts and rejects racist discourses produced by whites in her social circle. Sarah’s comments illustrate the difficulty of maintaining friendships with people who perpetuate individual racism, and they hint at the challenges of multiracial people forming romantic relationships with similar individuals. For multiracial people who are highly racially literate and who practice antiracism in their everyday lives to counter everyday racism,45 negotiating social interactions with friends and partners who harbor problematic racist ideologies can be taxing or trying at best. Befriending and/or partnering with these individuals can become a chore and, when undesirable enough, can be a serious impediment to maintaining healthy friendships or romantic relationships. It does not take too much of a stretch of the imagination to speculate that Sarah’s friend might have little to no interest in her, because she is not “white white.” Here, we see that her actions and willingness to engage someone reveal a lot about her character, as it contrasts with his character and his explicit hatred for black people. Sarah notes the difficulty in this process of engagement in conversations, but she does not expressly calculate the costs of holding space for this person’s friendship amid her very racially diverse friendship circle. For many multiracial people, finding friends who understand and accept their racial complexity and multiplicity is one thing; embracing or

Intimate Interrogations | 161

celebrating their broader social circles and networks is another. When friends, even casual ones, make racially disparaging remarks (i.e., “talk nasty about black people without sounding ‘racist’”46), those friends make it hard(er) for others who have racially diverse social networks and racially literate or racially fluent friends. It is likely that Sarah’s friend felt entitled to his disparaging and unsavory views of blackness and never thought of his observations or views of black people as racist. Like Sarah, Leilani learned various ways to respond to racist rhetoric and some people’s misperceptions of her as white. As a white-­appearing woman with black and Hawaiian parentage and someone who uses “slang, got a little twang to my voice,” Leilani often encountered people who border patrolled her racially; others often cannot decipher Leilani’s racially ambiguous appearance or her racial location, and her group membership is a mystery to many. Her indeterminate appearance (which approximates whiteness in people’s view) means that, based on her own accounts, Leilani is often privy to racist discourses circulated by whites in private spaces. This proves a precarious place to be because while Leilani looks white, she does not identify as such. Others might go so far as to read her ostensibly invisible mixture as an act of betrayal, a presumed alliance soured by the reality (or on discovery) of her racial multiplicity. Leilani began challenging racial ideologies in her own way, because she does not want to risk the appearance of condoning them (should her white-­looking appearance suggests otherwise). That is, Leilani does not want the misrecognition of her racial mixture, or the perception of her putative whiteness, to lead to presumed alliances with white racial logics that fail to align with her own racial politics and ideologies. She disagrees with these racist discourses and described feeling conflicted in staying silent; talking back to racist comments also helped her resolve any tensions she feels as a result of being a white-­looking black woman. Her voice generates much of the cognitive dissonance created between the way she looks, the way she “sounds,” and the way others figure out her racial location or “place her race”: One of my friends actually told me, she said, “I had my back turned to you and I just heard this voice, and I’m like, ‘Where is this voice coming from?’” and she’s looking all around the room and then sees that it was

162 | Intimate Interrogations

coming from me. . . . She actually thought I was Mexican. But we’re really good friends now. She was like, “I didn’t know where that voice was coming from because you sounded like a black girl.” That’s exactly what she said. . . . We laugh about it all the time.

Given her preferred black identity and black parentage, Leilani could have jokingly responded, “I am a black girl.” However, she chooses not to be too confrontational or risk appearing overly assertive in moments like these. It minimizes the work that she has to do to provide a proper explanation (sufficient enough to meet the satisfaction and/or approval of others). Sometimes, offering clarification opens the door for more conversation, or more interrogation and contestation, as others stand in disbelief that this white-­appearing woman who claims a black identity also has Hawaiian heritage. Growing up in a military family and moving around the world frequently meant that Leilani had a shifting sense of self in different social settings while also having the feeling of being racially read differently by various groups of people. As a black-­identified person, she felt “more connected with them [blacks]” who, in turn, helped racially locate her close to blackness.47 This, in addition to what her school peers suggest is her “talking black” or “sounding black,” Leilani’s voice makes her blackness legible, or at least more audible, to others. Having a lot of black friends and being in close proximity to them also enables others (who may not know her well) to racially decode her blackness, instead of having to explicitly ask Leilani about her racial identity and family heritage. Through casual conversations, people try to gather clues about Leilani’s racial composition (“because they don’t know really what I am and they’re afraid to ask”). Interestingly, by her accounts, people are afraid to ask Leilani questions, even as their interest in her racial ambiguity and identity persists. Arguably, if more individuals in the United States had some racial literacy, they could more easily navigate conversations of race. Instead, they make questionable (inaccurate) observations of her in their attempts to decode her racial location and racial group memberships and that of the individuals in her friendship network. In contrast to some of my earlier examples, Leilani manages a lot of her in/ visible mixture during social interactions with school peers. Close(r) relatives and her romantic partner already know more about her heritage

Intimate Interrogations | 163

and thus are less likely to provoke these negotiations of racial identity for her. While many of the white-­looking respondents with no known black or African ancestry seemed to have little problem with embracing and enjoying white privilege, Leilani and other racially ambiguous respondents with known black or African ancestry take a different stance. For the latter, having an ostensibly white appearance is generally not experienced as a racial privilege, even if it is intended to operate as such. Because these respondents, including Leilani, do not desire, covet, or exalt whiteness, nor do they want to be seen as white or even honorary white, they make few claims to whiteness. However, they may enjoy white privilege as it is structured to benefit all those who, with the appropriate appearance, can lay claims to it, actively or passively. Respondents like Leilani know that they approximate whiteness, but they do not intentionally attempt to access white racial privileges. This was particularly true for light-­appearing multiracial people who preferred asserting multiracial identities or protean identities (as opposed to “opting for white” or asserting singular white racial identities). Instead, they want to be able to claim their preferred racial identity without refutation or invalidation. They also wanted to participate in their romantic relationships without becoming a spectacle, a topic I discuss later in this chapter. Similarly, some light-­skinned multiracial people (with black ancestry) also discover that becoming “honorary white” holds many meanings, not all of which they find advantageous or desirable. For example, Keisha (a black-­identified woman of black, Native American, and white heritage) speculated about the potential ways her romantic partner perceives her racially. Her suspicions of his motivations and sincerity seem to haunt her a bit: [With my boyfriend] I kind of do wonder, because you know what? ­People would say he’s attracted to women with lighter skin, certain type of hair, Puerto Rican, not necessarily black. I’ve never heard him say anything about an attractive black woman. Everyone (he finds attractive) is Puerto Rican, or light-­skinned. You can tell they’re mixed with something. So it’s like, me saying that I am black means that he doesn’t really think that I am black just because of the type of female that he does like. It suggests that he doesn’t see me as black.

164 | Intimate Interrogations

Keisha’s example engages the question of what blackness means.48 The invalidation that Keisha describes here differs slightly from some research that provides evidence that many biracial people find it difficult to assert a border identity because they are “forced to choose” one race, or forced to pass.49 Her boyfriend does not actually challenge her border identity but rather prefers it, if primarily for self-­serving reasons. He racially border patrols her blackness, not necessarily because he does not view her as such but because he finds racial mixture and/or racial ambiguity attractive and desirable. In my interpretation, Keisha’s boyfriend relies on the most expansive definition of blackness, which theoretically is no great departure from the one-­drop rule. That categorical blackness envelops and includes racial diversity points to the wide range of people who have historically been forced to choose blackness, as well as those who willingly and actively choose to do so; however, it seems as if he cognitively reassigns his meaning to her blackness, which works to provoke her suspicions. Because it sounds like he needs her to be multiracial, he views her “black” identity as really “multiracial.” More often than not, the converse scenario unfolds, such that a person with a preferred multiracial identity encounters some negation or invalidation of that identity rather than a black one. That is, a tendency exists for some people to push for “real black”50 identities rather than to accommodate or celebrate racially mixed ones. What Keisha describes here is an example of the way that a white, or light, appearance can invalidate a preferred black identity. White or light skin color sometimes seems to do much of the work of racial border patrollers, who often aim to disqualify multiracial people with black ancestry from both blackness and whiteness, where applicable. The consequent view that such an individual is multiracial but definitely not black or white suspends the multiracial person in a liminal space, most commonly called the borderlands.51 For multiracial people “searching for home,”52 the borderlands can serve as not only an important space but also a fraught or tenuous reminder of their racial homelessness. The borderlands can create racially exilic conditions that make multiracial people feel ousted from the very racial categories and homelands of which they are (or long to be) a part.53 Potential and actual romantic partners who can tend to this exilic dynamic may themselves benefit tremendously, in terms of the respect and love they gain from

Intimate Interrogations | 165

their multiracial loved ones longing to feel this sense of embeddedness in racial groups and their attendant communities. This ability to understand and offer compassion to multiracial people who must manage racial borders on a regular basis inside and outside of their families is one way many respondents made determinations about their willingness to commit to a person and form a romantic relationship by becoming partners. From here, I build a bridge to the affective or emotional labor that multiracial people perform as they negotiate racial regulations within their intimate romantic relationships and some friendships.

“You Got Me Feeling Emotions,” or the Emotional Labor Involved in Experiences of Racial and Romantic Regulation Another important way that racially mixed people were discounted or faced contestations of their racial locations and identity involves emotions. The literature on the sociology of emotions is quite compelling as it reminds us that because emotions are social, they are also gendered and racialized.54 While existing literature expands on how gendered emotional labor is, with newer research illustrating how it is also racialized, I want to argue here that emotions not only are racialized but also racialize people. Recognizing this iterative or reciprocal process draws attention to the ways in which emotions can racialize or re-­racialize a person, since some emotions are arguably racially coded for “whites only.”55 In addition to feeling chastised by her boyfriend for “dressing a certain way” and from some friends who commented on her skin color and rejected her racial identity, Keisha felt racially border patrolled by them, given some of their comments. They would say, “‘You know, you need to stop talking like a white girl.’” While she initially found these comments contentious and offensive, Keisha began to see them in a different light: I guess I think it’s not offensive anymore. Initially it was, but I guess it was something that I’ve gotten used to. It was just, “Why would you say it [“white girl”]? What do you mean? Just because my skin is lighter than yours doesn’t mean that I’m white.” And then, also, my boyfriend knows about my father’s side—­so do my close friends—­but he’ll always say, “Well, you’re not black.” I laugh it off but it kind of makes me feel like he

166 | Intimate Interrogations

thinks that I’m not black enough. (I wonder), “What is he really thinking?” And I’m really emotional and he’ll say that I’m not strong, that I need to be stronger. And so, it’s kind of like most people associate black women with being strong.

There are a few interesting dynamics at play here. First of all, Keisha’s earlier discussion shows how others view her through the framework of controlling images.56 The stereotypical depiction of black women as strong, partially popularized by Michelle Wallace57 and her work on the “myth of the black superwoman,” counters many of the behavioral characteristics of Keisha. This, along with her ambiguous appearance, provides a partial account of others’ tendency to disqualify her blackness. Despite her desire to claim a black identity, Keisha faces identity invalidation from border patrollers, including her boyfriend. Based on the logic of borderism, Keisha fails to fit into existing controlling images of black femininity, and by extension, is “not really black.” That Keisha is seen as “emotional” casts her in this light, effectively whitening her in the eyes of others. This perception plays off the idea of the emotional fragility of white women58 while perpetuating the myth of the black superwoman59 who is dehumanized by the notion that she has endless emotional strength and capacity. Keisha is denied much range of emotionality; otherwise, she risks ostensibly in-­authenticating her race. It further hinders her from claiming a multiracial and black identity. That this emotionality is not read as part of her humanity provides evidence of this racialization of emotion. I argue here that multiracial people engage in emotion work and manage racialized emotions60 in the process of forming and maintaining romantic relationships. What Keisha and other respondents make apparent in their interviews is this concept of racialized emotions61 and specifically how the expression (or repression) of emotions can have “deleterious consequences” not just on black employees in the workplace but, I would argue, on multiracial people in romantic relationships as well. As certain emotions get coded as “white” (sadness, tears) or “black” (anger, rage), multiracial people may find themselves casually reassigned racial group membership, or dislocated from their racial location to another (or others). During social interactions, their expression of emotions becomes

Intimate Interrogations | 167

a way that they are racialized. This means that emotions are racialized and, by extension, racializes that people expressing those emotions racialized accordingly. Assessing someone’s racial location on the basis of emotion becomes yet another type of microaggressions and border-­patrolling behavior when the assessment is meant to curb that emotional expression or regulate the multiracial person’s affective labor and presentation of self in some way. Keisha’s narrative reveals the extent to which she is engaging in race work and emotional labor associated with negotiating racialized emotions amid the management of racial borders. That is, the story that she tells reveals how much multiracial people may be teased about their emotional expressions and informally asked to defend their emotions and behavioral choices. When Keisha gets upset about her friends and partner invalidating her identity, her emotional performance is read as a whitewashed one as well. Her affect effectively whitens her, which causes her more, rather than less, despair or sadness. She is trapped in this racialized and gendered trope and cannot express her reality emotionally, lest she risk erasing or compromising components of her multiracial identity and experiences. That Keisha is seen as emotional (or emotionally fragile) casts her as white or at least “not black” in the estimation or perception of many others. In the language of racialized emotions,62 Keisha is disallowed from this emotionality or finds it further hinders her from claiming a multiracial and black identity. That this emotionality is not read as a part of her humanity provides evidence of this racialization of emotion. Keisha’s narrative reveals the extent to which she is engaging in race work and emotional labor associated with negotiating racialized emotions amid the management of racial borders. Keisha’s experience is not unique to her, as other multiracial respondents report similar stories. They must feel compelled to “toughen up,” or engage in impression management so as not to appear “too emotional” (or soft; read: white). This is a kind of hegemonic femininity in its obligatory assertion of aggression. This feminized and racialized version of a “tough guise” is a superficial response to identity invalidation; it is a different kind of burden for multiracial people to bear, an evil twin of the burden black women bear under the weight of the expectation that they be strong.63 In other words, the imperative of strength misconstrues or

168 | Intimate Interrogations

mischaracterizes emotion as weakness or fragility rather than human vulnerability.64 This imperative also operates as a penalty for both multiracial and black identified women, who are denied the display of their affective truths. It can also move multiracial women further from categorical blackness and belonging among black women, based on the aforementioned logic of the “strong black woman” or the mythological black superwoman.65 This exclusion or marginalization of multiracial women from categorical blackness illustrates how perceptions (even stereotypical ones) impact desirability such that potential partners may also exclude multiracial women from their “pool of eligibles.” They may see multiracial women as outside of the group from which they may want to make their mate selection, or too much like white (for undesirable reasons like “excessive” emotionality) to be desired; conversely, the same men may find multiracial women’s symbolic capital and closer proximity to whiteness desirable. I found similar patterns across many respondents with black ancestry. Here’s a bit of my interview conversation with Campbell, whose story I opened this chapter: Campbell: See, even now, my boyfriend jokes with me. “Oh, you’re a white girl. Oh, you’re a white girl. Leave the white girl alone. Her feelings are hurt.” You know? It doesn’t bother me. Honestly, I think after about, probably about ten or eleven [years of age], it stopped bothering me. I got the tough skin after that, because my cousins—­ man, did they tease me when I was growing up. Author: What did they say? Campbell: Same thing. They used to call me “whitey.” They used to call me everything in the book. Things I probably didn’t even think—­ But “whitey,” that was my name. That was my nickname.

What Campbell describes here could be understood not only as an example of racialized emotions, and the way emotions can re-­racialize a multiracial person, but also as a form of microaggression,66 albeit familial ones, whereby family members, friends, and even one’s partner can tease racially mixed people about their heritage. That her partner (at the time of the interview) teased Campbell about her white parentage and what he saw as her approximation of whiteness suggests that he was unable

Intimate Interrogations | 169

to accommodate, much less appreciate, her whiteness or the reality that Campbell is not approximating whiteness but negotiating the whiteness that she inherited from her mother and that she performs as part of her multiracial experience. That Campbell felt she had to toughen up to handle these comments suggests the injurious impact (or the potential to harm her) and the extent to which she and others like her had to learn how to steel themselves to these sorts of racial microaggressions and authenticity tests. Again, this expectation endorses the mythical and stereotypical strong black woman. She later adds, Some people that I haven’t met or that I maybe meet for the first time perceive me sometimes as being white. Sometimes I just feel like it’s all a matter of how you meet somebody, when, and where you meet ’em at; I just always assume, or say, I have the best of both worlds. I mean, I just always, I guess after being teased for so long, that’s just how, I feel like that’s just how I had to take it because if I didn’t, it was going to bother me and hurt my feelings for the rest of my life. You know?

What Campbell is describing here is the way she suspects that (among people she has not met, including unfamiliar school peers she does not know directly or personally) people perceive her as white. The perception of Campbell as white is only a partial or incomplete truth, not an inaccurate observation, yet she experiences these perceptions as a form of identity invalidation, almost a slur, the sting that, at least by her school peers, she is not read as singularly black. Therefore, she must negotiate this regulation of race and do so with what others deem is the appropriate affective display or performance of emotion, this gendered and racialized emotion. The public perception of Campbell as white speaks to her experiences with identity invalidation, as it surfaces at school, at work, at home, or in social and romantic relationships. Even though she narrates a position of power or empowerment about appreciating her racial parentage and background and she has taught herself not to take racial teasing too seriously (being “overly sensitive” might likely whiten her further), she diminishes the impact of this invalidation. This negation of the pain or social discomfort of managing multiple racial locations or a racially

170 | Intimate Interrogations

mixed identity is itself a form of affective labor that Campbell engages in but may not be expressly aware that she is performing. For many respondents, being teased about one’s racial identity and background is, for obvious reasons, largely undesirable, if not unacceptable (particularly among potential or actual partners). Instead, ideally having a partner who not only accommodates but also affirms their preferred racial identity (whether multiracial or otherwise) proves important but often eluded many of the respondents. When we consider the broader social contexts in which multiracial people grow, then we can begin to make sense of the way they maneuver around race and in the world more generally. For example, Campbell described her experiences growing up in a family in which she never met her maternal grandfather, a white man who she describes as “a racist. I mean, he blew my dad’s car up, shot at my dad. Disowned my mom up until the day he died, like a week or so before he died.” Both Campbell’s mother and her aunt (her mother’s sister) married black men, and this upset their parents and relatives. Despite this adverse reaction, Campbell claims, As far as my grandmother, she wasn’t really racist [or was a little racist]. I think some of my cousins were somewhat racist but I think they love me regardless. I think it, like the older generation, you know how it is, how back then it was just the way it was, and I feel like sometimes, even the way it was, people can start to change, so I think they love my mom and even my mom’s sister who married a black man. They just accepted it and loved me just because, and never said anything about it but you can kind of tell that they know, that they felt they didn’t want it to happen, but when it did happen, and they got to know me and stuff, it was a different story, you know what I’m saying?

Here we see that Campbell has to do the “race work” of reframing racism, diminishing it, and knowing how to respond to it so as to make it manageable. As a multiracial member of an interracial family with obvious opposition to “interracial intimacy,” Campbell learned to accommodate this opposition, even making space for the “good, racist people”67 who are, in fact, beloved members of her family.

Intimate Interrogations | 171

Conclusion Beyond the messages that multiracial people get from mass media, they also get potentially and/or actually discouraging messages about their racial identity and partner choices a little closer to home. The very romantic partners with whom they form or are starting to form interracial relationships, and school peers, frequently attempt to maintain rigid boundaries of race by rewarding multiracial people for acting in ways they deem socially acceptable. Peers may penalize or marginalize multiracial people who they view as partnering with someone they “should not” be choosing. Additionally, they deploy authenticity tests to negate or invalidate the preferred racial identities of multiracial people. To some, a person’s choice of romantic partner is perhaps the most important (and contentious) racial authenticity test to pass or fail. But even closer to home, where everybody already knows your name, so to speak, these practices of racial regulation can curiously emerge as well. What does it mean when multiracial people face this kind of contestation and regulation of their racial identity and partner choices among their immediate (and sometimes extended) family members? I discuss this dilemma in the following chapter.

5

Disappearing Differences

When prompted to reflect on their relationship histories and romantic careers, how might multiracial people make sense of options available to them and their decisions related to the romantic relationships they enter? What are the patterns that emerge, individually and collectively, when it comes to their partner choice(s)? In this chapter, I discuss these patterns in the lives of multiracial people. In the process of discussing racial identity and intimate romantic partner choices with multiracial respondents, a productive tension emerged. This tension reveals the ways in which multiracial people make partner choices that often reflect and replicate the very regulation of race and romance that they may have faced from family members, friends, social peers, and/or strangers. This tension also exists as people navigate the contours of color lines and colorblindness. Many respondents casually and comfortably discussed their everyday experiences, eagerly and easily sharing the details of their lives. Others, however, were less effusive and excited to reveal the more personal sides of their private identities and intimate lives. In the latter case, respondents remained more reluctant to or cautious about sharing deeply. This contrasts still with what I regarded among some respondents as more of a refusal to discuss race and romance more meaningfully (as opposed to a reluctance borne out of a tendency toward privacy). Amid the reticence and the reluctance, an unwillingness to discuss race directly speaks to a colormuteness that prevails in the United States.1 Arguably, most people are hesitant to recognize how race informs their intimate partner choices and may relate to their preferred racial identity. Such acknowledgments depart from the codes of colormuteness and colorblindness, twin discourses that enable an evasion of attention to race and racism.

172

Disappearing Differences | 173

While it makes sense that most respondents would not admit to participating in the regulation of race and romance or identifying themselves as racial border patrollers, some occasionally did, in their own way. Those who made such disclosures discussed why they engage(d) in this behavior, while others remained reticent and reluctant to delve into these topics deeply. As a researcher, I anticipated, accommodated, and respected these varied approaches and discursive strategies, as they are commonly used in contemporary society. Doing so facilitated helping the respondents feel comfortable and at ease. I enjoyed their abundant generosity in sharing details of themselves and their romantic careers and appreciated the careful, thoughtful reflection they made in the process of discussing their experiences regarding romance, as well as their racial identity. Guided by my interest in how racial identity and relationship choices thread together, I invited participants to specifically share as much as they felt comfortable about these topics. In this chapter, I reflect on what it means that multiracial individuals who are discursively constructed as having more choices than most (single-­race) people do not often maximize access to the mythically abundant or wide-­ranging options arguably available to them, individually and/or relationally.

Choosing Similar Differences: What “Like Attracts Like” Looks Like for Multiracials When it comes to people’s friendships and romantic relationships, one general rule prevails: “like attracts like.”2 Evidence of these patterns of homophyly3 and homogamy4 exists in the national population. With almost 90 percent of romantic relationships involving individuals of the same singular race, just over 10 percent of romantic relationships are interracial ones.5 Where might multiracial people fall among these statistics? For people who identify as two or more races, reflection on the question of which people are “like others” proves prickly. For some multiracial people, choosing someone of the same racial background might reflect “similarity” in one way, but not in others. That is, a romantic partner might share similar racial parentage but have a visibly different

174 | Disappearing Differences

phenotypic appearance. This partner might also assert a contrasting preferred racial identity, despite the shared racial mixture in their respective parentage. Further still, racial identities remain fluid, such that people can choose to assert different racial identities over time, place, and space. How might any fluidity or shifting mixture be accounted for, or any shared racial identity—­a similarity amid differences, if you will? Often, multiracial people have been described as beacons of hope for the future. Ironically, this view stems from the blending of racial borders that actually preceded them (in the previous generation). Nevertheless, many multiracial people rebuke racial mixture, opting instead for membership in a single racial group. Furthermore, they may work to brighten racial borders through their romantic partner choice. They can accomplish this by aligning with or expressing racial solidarity to the racial group with which they most closely identify and/or that reflects the racial group in which they claim an identity with a primary emphasis.6 For example, a white and Asian multiracial person with a primary white identity blends racial borders through their largely singular racial identity and implicitly white appearance. Should said person partner romantically with a white person, they further blend racial borders. These choices solidify a more privileged or advantageous position in society, for multiracials who make such choices enjoy the currency of whiteness, individually and relationally, even if by proxy. Contrast that with a multiracial person with darker skin who partners with someone black. Because dark skin is seen as a liability within the current racial hierarchy and pigmentocracy,7 access to racial privilege, individually and relationally, will be mitigated by this reality. Thus, a multiracial person’s access to privilege remains contingent largely on others’ racial reading of their racial identity and partner choice. Their access to privilege is shaped accordingly. Through their preferred identities and partner choices, then, multiracial people may or may not explicitly challenge normative expectations. Instead, based on my findings, they appear to uphold the status quo. That is, many multiracials have romantic careers constituted predominantly, if not exclusively, with people of a singular racial group membership. Generally, said singular racial group(s) overlaps with that of the respective respondents’ primary identity. The result: invisibly interracial relationships.

Disappearing Differences | 175

Invisibly interracial relationships exist within a context in which multiracial people appear to be a singular race (invisibly mixed), with that race aligning or overlapping with that of their respective romantic partner(s). In my research, two overarching patterns prevailed in this regard: (1) among participants who primarily identified as white8 (or would be considered part of the “white” and/or “honorary whites” categories) and made no claims to blackness, they also had relationship histories that almost exclusively included “like others”—­white and honorary white romantic partners—­and (2) among participants who primarily identified as black, (or were themselves often viewed as “collective blacks”), they predominantly partnered with “like others” (people similarly perceived as part of the collective black category). Despite a persistent discourse about enhanced options, many multiracial people in my sample effectively engaged in “disappearing differences,” in part by flattening their own racial multidimensionality into a singular category and through partner choices that aligned with, if not emphasized, that singularity. (Their choices facilitated the appearance of singularity, despite their racial multiplicity, which explains their “invisible mixture.”) Generally, the multiracial individuals in my study engaged in behavior that supports the racial hierarchy. That is, most whiter-­and lighter-­skinned multiracial individuals with a primarily white identity partnered with other white or honorary white people (including white multiracials). Additionally, darker-­skinned multiracial individuals with a primarily black identity partnered with other black-­identified people. Why would these patterns unfold in this way? As researchers note, multiracial people uphold the racial hierarchy, in part through their own elevated status in society and through choices that facilitate partnerships with people in privileged positions. These choices enable them to blend racial borders, thus effectively folding multiracial people and their racial mixture into seemingly cohesive singular race categories. The minimization of race remains curious amid this observation: “It is evident that race becomes a component that partners in a given relationship must manage.”9 That is, race plays such a central role in organizing people in this society that refusals to see how race shapes romance feel stubborn at this point in time. Nevertheless, many white multiracials minimize race to present their dating or relationship history as

176 | Disappearing Differences

uninformed by race (their own or that of potential partners) or racism. Using this strategy to talk about relationships without talking about race exemplifies a deracination of desires. This discursive strategy works to erase the way that race impacts individuals’ identities and experiences in romantic relationships. Throughout this book, I have attempted to show various ways in which race and romance remained entangled. Given the wealth of empirical evidence documenting how race shapes people’s lives, individuals who deny ways that race matters10 protect their white privilege. They fuel the illusion that race is not real in its social, political, or economic consequences.

Whiteness as “the Ultimate”: The Continuing Significance of Race and Racism Research on multiracial dating preferences documents the following pattern: When respondents were questioned about their racial dating preferences, over 87 per cent of all biracial daters indicated that they were willing to date someone outside their own racial/ethnic group. In terms of racial dating preferences, the overwhelming majority indicated that they were seeking partners who were white (92 per cent), followed closely by respondents who reported they were willing to date Hispanics (81 per cent). Approximately 71 per cent of daters indicated that they sought partners who racially were classified as ‘other.’ Sixty-­six and sixty-­three per cent of respondents specified that they were willing to date partners who were Asian and black, respectively.11

Consistent with this literature on dating patterns and preferences among multiracial people, many of the respondents in my sample reported romantic careers largely constituted by whites. Of the thirteen respondents who acknowledged white and Asian parentage but claimed a variety of racial identity options, almost all of them shared relationship histories that not only identified but also idealized (as it centered) white people as partners.12 The centrality and superiority of whiteness was internalized (or acknowledged as idealized) by many

Disappearing Differences | 177

respondents, including Flora, a black and white multiracial woman who noted, “I guess I just think that people look at Caucasian as ‘the ultimate.’” The ideological persistence of white dominance permeates partner choice, as it signals who is most desirable (as evidenced by Flora’s comments). What is instructive here is not simply the placement of whiteness at the center of their respective dating universes but also the normalization of whiteness—­evidenced by the unquestioning or uncritical manner in which whiteness exists at the center. The consequence of white centrality involves not just de-­centering other racial groups but what plays out to be a patterned exclusion as well. The ideological dominance of whiteness also gets chosen regarding the respondents’ preferred racial identities. Among multiracials with no known African ancestry, the tendency to partner with “like others” provided invaluable insight into their preferred racial identities, proving instructive for how multiracials live race in the United States and beyond. For most of the white multiracials, partnering with a “like other” resulted in romantic careers with whites. With that, whiteness becomes likeness or racial similarity. What explains this pattern? For most white-­identified and/or white-­ appearing multiracial respondents, the decision to partner with a white or white multiracial person results in a romantic relationship of racial similarity and familiarity. That is, among white Asian, white Latinx, and even a few white–­black multiracials in my sample, those who appeared white or approximated whiteness likely had romantic careers largely involving whites. Few discussed many differences, experientially speaking, between themselves and their romantic partners. In my interpretation, this provides support for multiracial identities with a white emphasis,13 or perhaps a “thicker”14 white identity than an Asian one. Additionally and speculatively, the real or imagined social distance that the respondents perceive between themselves and whites is telling. It hints at how white-­identified these multiracials may be. That is, they may nominally be multiracial but truly prefer a white identity. As a result, these perceived similarities between the respondent(s) and their respective romantic partner(s) work to convince these multiracial respondents in these relationships that race does not inform these partnerships in any significant way. This pattern is evidenced in

178 | Disappearing Differences

the literature.15 In addition to this preference for whiteness in their personal or individual identity, many multiracials have preferences (or what appear to be) in terms of romantic partners. They even produce narratives that mimic the dominant discourses as discussed in the following section.

A Matter of Preference, Personality, or Prejudice? Ample evidence exists to illustrate the extent to which people go to preserve (the illusions of) racial “purity”; they accomplish this in part by patrolling the borders of race.16 However, many multiracial people firmly believe that, as products of interracial intimacy themselves, they can harbor no such bias or judgments against others. After all, they may believe that they signify the porosity of race, the blending of races, and, from there, can blend racial borders even further. Everyone is implicated in a racist society, all of us actors (whether in service of social justice, the perpetuation of asymmetrical power and privileges, or some curious combination thereof).17 By logical extension, multiracial people are also implicated (despite being constructed as uniquely constituted and situated between racial borders). Racially mixed people cannot avoid the same social forces that racialized families18 or the extent to which romance is raced.19 Families reproduce race, intentionally and unintentionally, through the various choices its members make, whether through marriage and partnership, as well as decisions around reproduction including birth, adoption, and alternative insemination options. Nevertheless, many of these multiracial people maintain the false notion or sincere racial fiction that they are not making partner choices based on race or that these processes and decisions are not racialized ones. Thus, multiracials operate under the misguided notion that they are attracted to whomever they like simply as a matter of individual interest or preference. They do not see the social forces impacting these choices; rather, they see their choice as a reflection of their individuality, their partnership a result of personality matches. Thus, any “preference” is not understood to be a form of “preferential treatment,” prejudice, or bias, where some contenders (whites) have a much greater chance of being considered and chosen, while others (honorary whites) are given

Disappearing Differences | 179

less consideration, and others still (collective blacks) are not given much consideration at all. Let’s take a look at some real-­life examples. Consider Timothy, a self-­ identified “half White and half Korean” multiracial man. In the predominantly white “country town” where he lives, Timothy is often misread as Mexican. Arguably, people are misreading his Korean background and coding his light-­brown skin according to demographic patterns in the region. Because of his physical appearance (including lighter skin color, dark straight hair), Timothy also looks white and Asian. In many ways, one could say Timothy looks “clearly mixed,” an embodiment of a “racial optical illusion.”20 Despite this malleability or ambiguity in his appearance, Timothy repeatedly chooses whiteness as his home. This became apparent throughout our interview conversation where whiteness remained central, especially in his intimate romantic relationships. When asked to reflect on patterns in his romantic career, Timothy defended his choices through a “too close for comfort” cliché. Rather than directly explain why he chose to exclusively date white women, he offered reasons for why he did not choose women of other races, including Asian women. For Timothy, dating Asian women felt particularly uncomfortably close to home, too much of a reminder of his Korean mother and multiracial (Korean and white) sister, among other women relatives. Notably, Timothy reported no relationship with an Asian woman, nor did he date any women who were not white. Nevertheless, he later described Korean women as more morally attractive or virtuous than white women, indicating, “What I find attractive in relationships is a woman who is very modest. . . . They have to have beliefs and values.”21 Aside from his mother discouraging him from dating “really slutty” women, he noted this about her: “My mom, she just doesn’t care about it. Like she is supposed to hate certain ethnic groups, but she likes everyone. . . . I mean, I am probably the one who thinks, ‘Don’t bring that kind of person home,’ but that’s not dictated by my parents or anything. . . . I look at a girl’s character. I really don’t care about race, but it’s just like, I can’t be attracted to an Asian girl. It’s very hard because it reminds me of my sister a lot. And so it’s kind of scary.” While the impact of parental influence on his romantic career may not be pronounced, societal messages that idealize white womanhood are. In realizing some potential implications of his romantic career, choices, and comments, Timothy

180 | Disappearing Differences

makes this recuperative effort: “It would be awesome [to date a Korean woman] because Korean people are awesome.” Timothy is caught in a tug-­of-­war in which he attempts to reconcile his love and respect for his multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural family and heritage with any internalized racism and idealized whiteness. He wrestles with some dominant narratives of these groups of women and attendant ways of seeing them through hegemonic lenses: one idealized (white women), and the other Orientialized,22 exoticized, and, by extension, dehumanized (Asian women). He arguably sees white womanhood as more prized than Asian womanhood,23 the former a reflection of idealized, emphasized, and hegemonic femininity.24 Even the mythical model minority holds less appeal and desirability in a racial hierarchy that valorizes whiteness.25 Timothy deploys the rhetorical device of “culture,”26 citing that as a potential pitfall to partnering with someone culturally similar. Rather than recognizing shared Asian ancestry and Korean culture as a currency or potential point of connection, Timothy regards it with apprehension, even aversion. He opts instead for “American” (read: white) women intimate romantic partners. What would explain Timothy’s behavior as it aligns with that of several other white and Asian multiracials in my sample? Why do most of the white and Asian multiracial respondents’ race logic and dating experiences echo his? For many multiracial people searching for romantic love, familiarity can be affronting, not comforting. Multiracial people may invoke variations of the following discursive strategy: “‘he reminded me too much of my cousin’ . . . as a means of rejecting a partner.”27 This concern with familiarity was “reserved for men of color, as no respondents ever indicated a concern over potential White partners reminding them of any White family members”;28 for many multiracials like Timothy, then, the prospect of dating “someone who is like family is uncomfortable.” Why might Timothy anticipate discomfort in an imagined relationship with an Asian woman, given his own Asian ancestry, when he does not hold similar feelings about white women with whom he has been in actual relationships with? While his aversion to dating a woman too reminiscent of his sister is understandable, his (inconsistent) logic fails to consider white women as “too familiar” as well, amid the whiteness

Disappearing Differences | 181

that is also a part of his family. Timothy does not describe dating a white woman with a similar level of scorn or disdain, likely because of the rich symbolism that surrounds, protects, and elevates white womanhood. It is in this curious contradiction that one witnesses in Timothy his easy, comfortable identification with and as white, the centrality and primacy of whiteness within his multiracial identity, and the necessity of whiteness at the core of his own romantic relationships. Timothy drove this point home when I asked him if he considered a relationship “interracial” when partnering with a white woman, and he replied, “Not really.” Timothy’s comments offer additional insight into how he views himself and how he “disappears difference.” His response captures his perceived proximity to whiteness, an implicit whiteness, a preferred racial location for him. On a continuum of biracial identity,29 we might find Timothy on the end of the spectrum near (and with emphasized) whiteness. The overlapping or shared racial group membership (whiteness) that Timothy narrates in that moment speaks to the partiality of that shared whiteness as he is both white and Asian. That he does “not really” see a romantic relationship with a white person as possibly interracial also speaks to the thickness of his (preferred) white identity is and the thinness of his Asian identity.30 While he reportedly feels regarded as “not white enough” or not fully white and “not Asian enough” or not fully Asian, Timothy erases much of his mixture by discursively disappearing the composite parts of his parentage. His example illustrates the difficulty that many multiracial people themselves have in determining “what counts as interracial for multiracials.”31 As discussed earlier in the book, some multiracials conceptualize the composition of their own racial identity as overlapping with that of their romantic partner, thereby making theirs a same-­race or racially homogeneous relationship. Others view their racial identities as different enough to constitute an interracial relationship. Timothy narrates little awareness of the extent to which he idealizes whiteness, even as it shapes whom he desires and includes in his romantic career. He attempts to evade explicit conversations about race and its impact on his partner choice. Understandably, he likely wants to feel the freedom to choose; talking about the regulation of choice impedes and infringes on that freedom.

182 | Disappearing Differences

Despite any discomfort he felt about discussing race in his romantic relationships, Timothy was able to break from his patterned colorblindness and colormuteness at various other points in our interview: I am more accepted because I’m not fully white, you know. Like in my school, I was more accepted by the black people. I was basically accepted by everyone, because I wasn’t only White but also something else. So, it’s pretty cool. It’s nice because I don’t know, it seems like a lot of white people that went to my school were scared of black people, you know. I don’t know why. They [black people] are the same kind of people, really nice. You just have to know them. You just have to know the way to break the ice, because a lot of Asian people never minded [cared] to hang around black people, but I was able to do that. . . . I honestly think that nothing about my race molded anything. I think it’s just my personality getting along with people and everything. It doesn’t matter, the racial thing, that black people like me or don’t like me. I think it’s all my personality.

The popularity of colorblind narratives sweetly seduces32 Timothy into believing that his identity and partner choices are not informed by race. However, he clearly cares about and is aware of the way that race matters; it operates in his favor, as he is viewed as likable and embraced by a racially diverse group of peers. Timothy’s comments align with and advance the rhetoric offered by other multiracial men respondents who constructed and endorsed the idea of their desirability and palatability to others. These discursive practices also perpetuate the trope about the “best of both worlds,” in part by ignoring any inclusion and exclusion multiracial people experience. As discussed earlier, some of the messaging that circulated in his household likely informed how Timothy understood his options in terms of his own agency and parental hopes or expectations; his parents have never disapproved of his romantic partner choice(s). His discussion earlier perpetuates the idea that mere acknowledgment or rhetorical ownership of individual preferences absolves people of any additional accountability or that no further action is needed as long as they admit that they have said preferences. His comments exemplify the racialized hierarchy of desire and the discursive dangers of such desires and hierarchies.33

Disappearing Differences | 183

Using the language of “preference” gets messy because bias can often be found behind preferences. For example, research illustrates ways that white gay men often veil their individual racism with the language of preference.34 Many of these men believe that they are entitled to have a preference; they do not see these preferences as related to the exclusion of a number of other racial groups from their romantic careers. Yet they rely on the language of preference to politely defend their choices and, in effect, their racism; their individual racism reflects larger patterns of structural racism. They do not understand (or acknowledge any understanding) that having explicit preferences and racialized desires result in their exclusionary practices as they refuse to consider dating people outside of the groups of their stated preferences. This sort of denial is commonplace within a colorblind society and characteristic of colorblindness as a useful rhetorical device to deflect away from race. Other white and Asian multiracial people possess preferences that they expressed, politely but problematically, throughout their interview conversations. They narrated apprehension and aversion to dating Asians in their romantic careers, relying on a similarly race-­evasive discursive style. Take, for example, the experiences of Miki, who discussed a dating history that almost exclusively included white men. While her Japanese father and white American mother never explicitly mandated that she only date white men, Miki repeatedly made this decision on her own in her romantic career. She explained: “They’ve all been white [men]. I guess, Caucasian. . . . I’ve never been interested in an Asian man, guy I mean. . . . I never really had an attraction. I don’t know what exactly it could be.” Discursively, Miki maneuvers in ways consistent with colorblindness and colormuteness. That Miki admits that she does not find any Asian man attractive reveals a lot about whom she sees as a suitable partner. Her conversation speaks to the “racialized politics of desire” that deems whiteness perpetually more valuable and thus attractive and appealing at the risk of also perpetuating the devaluation of people of color in society and, more specifically, in the mate selection process.35 What do Miki’s earlier comments say about her Japanese father, or other Asian relatives, even her own relationship to being Japanese, that she chooses a partner from a narrowly defined, although dominant (white), racial group? That this pattern emerged among all the

184 | Disappearing Differences

respondents with some Asian heritage suggests that these Asian multiracials arguably have very thin Asian identities. Also, it is instructive here that, even though Asians are often awarded an “honorary white” membership or status in society, they remain among the group most often explicitly identified as “undesirable” by a number of the Asian multiracial respondents themselves in my sample. Notably, however, many of the same respondents never even mentioned members of other racial groups, instead speaking to how they choose (or not) based on their own heritage. This is a significant point, as it indicates that, for these multiracial people, the range of options within their romantic careers appeared limited to the groups that constitute their own heritage. However, since one group was privileged and one was viewed considerably less favorably, the former group (white) won, over and over again. Latinx, Native American, and black people were never mentioned explicitly, which suggests that they were never considered contenders or potential romantic partners. This pattern aligns with the literature.36 Furthermore, it is both ironic and sobering that many of the same respondents who reported managing precarious positions in their respective racial, ethnic, and cultural groups perpetuated similar dynamics with people who claim a singular Asian identity. Even as they searched for a true sense of belonging and community and confronted some misrecognition and/or rejection along the way, they participated in regulating racial borders and engaging in authenticity tests. These exclusionary practices reinforce the rhetoric of Asians as “undesirable” socially, romantically, and sexually, making multiracial Asians more so (desirable across these dimensions). These troublesome tropes ensure that white Asian multiracials will likely continue to access (honorary) white racial privilege because of their misrecognition as white and/or their close(r) proximity to whiteness.37 In concert with their parents then, these respondents end up reproducing racial divides and protecting any racial privileges they can enjoy. In Miki’s case, she found herself inclined toward the racial groups of her parents. Miki mentions that her family never indicated whom she should and should not date. In fact, they seldom discussed race and romance directly. Given that her parents’ interracial romantic relationship likely provoked some sort of attention or reactions from others (within

Disappearing Differences | 185

the family and society), their silence (surrounding conversations about race and romance) seems deafening. In many ways, her tendency toward the twin discourses of colorblindness and colormuteness makes sense when situated intergenerationally. Frequently, families maintain those practices (to plug into and/or protect racial privilege). As previously discussed, many parents more explicitly encouraged the respondents to choose certain (socially desirable) partners as a means of accessing racial privileges. Miki’s experience of having parents who did not explicitly police her racial identity and partner choices stands in contrast to those respondents whose parents more pointedly made these suggestions. Nevertheless, she gravitated toward romantic partners who were well positioned within the racial hierarchy. One of the most interesting things about our interview conversation occurred when I asked Miki if she considered her (then current) relationship an “interracial” one. Miki admitted that she has seldom thought of her partner choice as being informed or influenced by race; she failed to see romantic partnership choices (or relationships) as racialized in any way. Because of her known racially mixed parentage, Miki’s relationship “could” count as an interracial one. However, she confesses, “I never really think about it that way.” Her admission speaks to the possibility that she has internalized racial mixture, making it so normative as to not be noticeable to her; by contrast, Miki might be highlighting some internalized racism in not noticing race in a racially divisive world. Amid a mostly colorblind and colormute interview conversation, Miki momentarily acknowledged what happens when implicit whiteness is interrogated. One question that facilitated this interrogation pertained to what counts as an “interracial” relationship for her. This question prompted further reflection on the impact that race and racism have on her romantic relationship: Well, the only time I’ve ever thought about it is this relationship, because every other boyfriend knew I was a quarter [Japanese], and they all asked me about it and acted like it was pretty cool. And now this one (current partner), it’s not like he doesn’t think it’s a good thing, it’s just that he won’t really accept it. . . . It’s so weird because he’s so open to everything else. I don’t know what that’s all about.

186 | Disappearing Differences

As discussed in the previous chapter, Miki’s boyfriend invalidates her multiracial parentage; this results in Miki being border patrolled by him. His ambivalence about accepting her as multiracial, even as she asserts this identity with a white emphasis, troubles her. This realization reflects Miki’s awakening to the ways race is an influential factor in her romantic relationships and the extent to which multiracial matters to her, at least in certain contexts. That Miki did not consider hers an “interracial” one until experiencing identity invalidation as a multiracial woman aligns with the literature. That is, while she may have wanted to choose whiteness, individually and relationally, her known multiraciality compromises, or constrains, such choices. Being multiracial challenged her boyfriend’s perception of her as implicitly white; she rebuked his refusal or discomfort in seeing her as both white and Asian. Ironically, in being border patrolled by her boyfriend, Miki internalized that borderism. By not considering her relationship with a white romantic partner as interracial, she disappears the difference between her own racial background and that of her white boyfriend. She did not seem to recognize any parallels between her lack of attraction to Asian men and her boyfriend’s discomfort with and invalidation of her Japanese heritage. Miki is participating in a circuitous process of border patrolling: she is being border patrolled and becomes a border patroller. In a city full of ostensible options and in a contemporary moment that opens up ample racial identity options, Miki consistently chooses in favor of whiteness by crafting a romantic career whereby she draws from a pool of mostly young white men. This pattern then contradicts, or at least undermines, her assertion that she appreciates this diversity in which she is surrounded given her living in a demographically diverse city. Despite describing her home city and friendship network as diverse, Miki cites a largely white circle of friends as an explanation for the lack of diversity in her dating history. This points to the structural constraints in society as evidenced in institutional patterns that impede interracial interactions and contact, much less more meaningful or intimate relationships.38 This sort of contradiction is the language of colorblindness. It partially reflects the result of racial socialization processes that work to shore up any intergenerational access to whiteness and its attendant

Disappearing Differences | 187

privileges. Miki has learned to minimize or disappear racial difference, ignore her racial multiplicity, and ultimately erase her racial mixture, at least through discursive practices and her decisions around “opting for white” through her preferred (white) identity and (white) partner choices (both of which prioritize whiteness). So what would account for this pattern? This pattern of preferred and elevated whiteness remained central across most of my interviews with multiracial respondents who had white parentage (although this pattern was much less pronounced among respondents with known African ancestry). The story that Miki shares in her interview is one that lacks critical awareness of or an impulse to interrogate race. Her implicit whiteness facilitates that she moves through the world with greater ease, so much so that she is completely caught off guard by the invitation to critically examine the exclusively white romantic career that she has created for herself. That she so successfully participates in these dominant discourses displays the degree to which she embodies whiteness through a refusal to recognize race and a quietly forceful resistance to acknowledge the extent to which she internalizes whiteness. With narratives that echo that of Timothy and Miki, Theresa noted a similar Asian aversion. Author Helie Lee describes the aversion in this way: “What spooked me was the incestuous feeling of dating a brother, and the unknown—­especially the unknown. Inexperienced, I had bought into the stereotype of small penises and inadequate foreplay.”39 An overgeneralization of physical similarity or racial resemblance guides this fear. Theresa shared: I mostly was interested in the typical American-­looking guy. . . . I just typically went for guys that had, you know, light-­colored hair, brown hair, not too dark, um, that was when I was younger. I was never really interested in Asian guys, at all, because I felt like it was like dating my brothers. It was really weird. . . . It’s almost like, um, when I look at, well, that’s not to say that I haven’t as an adult, because as an adult, I was attracted to this Asian guy, but when I was growing up it seemed like, when I looked at them, I saw my brother. You know?

Based on Theresa’s description, the “typical American-­looking guy” translates into a “white guy.”40 This reinforces not only a racial hierarchy

188 | Disappearing Differences

but also a hegemonic masculinity that privileges whiteness.41 Oddly enough, dating white men did not seem awkwardly or uncomfortably familiar to Theresa in the way that dating Asian men sounds for her, despite her brothers being both Asian and white. As a white and Asian multiracial person herself, Theresa normalizes any romantic attention from men of these two racial groups, even as she prefers the attention of white men, and dislikes the discomforting thought of partnering with an Asian man. As is encouraged in this society and discussed earlier, Theresa likely sees whiteness as the ultimate partner choice and chooses accordingly. She embraces or elevates whiteness while occasionally accommodating, but often excluding, Asian men. This exclusion extends beyond Asian men to include men in the collective black category. Her following comments further illustrate the aforementioned centering or idealizing whiteness and lightness: Author: When you said “not too dark,” you meant the hair or the skin color? Theresa: Probably both, you know, and then when I got a little older, like in my late teens, early twenties, I found myself more attracted to people; um, of different races, but when I was younger, I definitely was, I think, influenced by the white world that I lived in.

Theresa partially participates in the discourse of colorblindness, even as the contradictions of her choices become apparent. That is, even though Theresa considers herself brown, she gestures to a perceived racial divide between her (brownness) and others (blackness). In locating herself in “the racial middle”42 or in a liminal location like the borderlands, Theresa places herself in a position outside of categorical blackness. Doing so disrupts the idea that black men should ask her out (based on within-­group membership and normative expectations for homogamy). Nevertheless, Theresa hints at having experienced mutual attraction to black men yet did not lament their absence from her romantic career: There have been some black guys that I was attracted to, black guys that were, um, attracted to me but never really either one of us pursued it. There was kind of like an attraction, you could kind of sense something,

Disappearing Differences | 189

but you know, you weren’t really sure, and so maybe if you weren’t sure, you didn’t really pursue it.

Instead, she seemed to accept that racial divide while remaining rather neutral about never actually being in a loving relationship with black men. Her neutrality may largely be due to her happily married relationship status at the time of our interview. Alternately, Theresa may have been participating in various forms of border patrolling, including the beneficiary kind. Doing so gives her greater access to white privilege by proxy, as her relationship with her white husband may look implicitly white to outsiders. Beneficiary border patrolling allows people to choose their racial identity and romantic partners who provide enhanced access to white privilege. Theresa may also have been engaging in protective border patrolling, concerned about possible disinterest or rejection. That is, she might have avoided choosing certain romantic partners as a protective mechanism. She alludes to this when she notes the uncertainty of assessing how black men feel about her. This observation hints at the ways in which the racial divide between whites and multiracials (of certain racial combinations) may be smaller than that between multiracials and collective blacks. Her comments thus expose a presumed alliance and inferred familiarity she feels with white men, or whiteness more generally; this familiarity might be the result of Theresa’s honorary whiteness (despite referencing herself as “brown”). Despite an uncertainty that typifies most initial attractions (whether they manifest into eventual relationships), the comfortable choice appears to be with whites as opposed to collective blacks. Following this point, there exists the possibility that Theresa might be malevolently border patrolling black people. She produces a palatable narrative that sanitizes any actual disinterest in black men. Theresa allows herself to not expect black men’s romantic advances, which thereby allows her to not have to respond to them. For these reasons, we can read Theresa as potentially, albeit passively, regulating the romantic advances of black men, even if she does so, in part, to minimize any unsupportive reactions from her own family. Elsewhere, Theresa described her family as very supportive of her. She attributes much of this support to the racial mixture that exists at the familial level: “Of course, you know, my family is a mixed family

190 | Disappearing Differences

so I never felt any hesitation or anything, you know, from my parents.” Nevertheless, Theresa remained reluctant about crossing certain racial divides in her romantic career. Notably, Theresa offers up her interracial family of origin as evidence that she accepts others of various racial backgrounds. This gesture neglects any evidence to the contrary that exists within families. As the extant literature shows, even individuals in interracial families can harbor racist ideologies and support racism in the face of this intimate irony. Here, Theresa shares how she makes sense of who does and does not approach her with romantic interest: Author: Hmm . . . have you ever felt like you were attracted to people who weren’t attracted to you? So where you expressed interest and they didn’t reciprocate? Theresa: But you know what’s funny is I never really thought it being about my race. I just always thought about it as they weren’t attracted to me. I was, you know, chubby when I was growing up. And I had all these crushes on guys and I had a feeling that it was probably because I was chubby but I never really thought about it having to do with my race because I guess—­I just—­I guess I’d never really just thought that much about my race, until I got older, and well except when the kids would call me “Chink” and kids tease me but aside from that, I never really thought about my brownness.

Theresa’s admission that she never considered race related to her partner choices aligns with the extant literature. Even as she highlights at least one way others acknowledged her race and racial difference (through racist epithets and racist jokes),43 she simultaneously minimizes race and racism as impactful on her romantic career. Another respondent engaged in similar discursive practices. In narrating her preferences, Lexie, a white and Asian multiracial woman, practiced beneficiary border patrolling, as a way to secure the benefits of racial privilege. Lexie shared comments to illustrate how access to this afforded her certain protections: I think it would be better to partner with somebody white, because I’m in the South, and a lot of my dad’s family is still old thinking. . . . In the

Disappearing Differences | 191

South, there’s still the whole—­they’re old, and white bathroom junk, Jim Crow, black guys don’t work blah, blah; all the stereotypes are still held on some of his [her white father’s] side.

As an implicitly white woman, or from her vantage point of white adjacency, Lexie learns that choosing whiteness, on individual, relational, and thus familial levels, cultivates a currency. She attempts to play it safe by making choices that enable her to navigate precarious geographies of race. Partnering with a white man enables her to disappear differences to the degree that the couple is read as implicitly white. Paradoxically, choosing whiteness ostensibly guards Lexie from the racism she imagines would get expressed or amplified were she to choose to romantically partner with a black person. While she may not ideologically support anti-­black racism, her behavior effectively does (as she casts black men from her pool of eligibles). Given the contemporary social, political, and geographical (even epidemiological) landscape and its current incendiary quality, people are paying closer attention to how the social environment shapes everyday lives. For multiracial people like Lexie, this awareness translates into or informs her choice of romantic partner(s), who are imagined and expected to provide the necessary protection from racialized harm and in a racially antagonistic and volatile time. Another example comes from Kim, an Asian American–­identified (white and Filipino) woman. Although she did not think that race “makes much difference” in her relationships and paid little attention to how others responded to her and her boyfriend, a white and Latino (Mexican) man, she noted: I don’t really much think about it [race]. It’s not a major forerunner with me. It doesn’t overly affect me. People don’t have problems with it. I don’t have problems with it . . . partially because I don’t care what other people have to think and partially because the people I associate myself with generally don’t see me as what I am but who I am. If there’s someone I don’t like, someone I feel is, has a problem with who I am, how I feel, or what I think, I’ll generally walk away from the situation. I just won’t associate myself. I feel no need to.

192 | Disappearing Differences

Despite her indifference to race matters and her claim that she does not “really have a type,” Kim contradicted herself: “I have different things for different genders. Men—­physically taller, broader men. I usually like, other than [my current partner], the general feature, blond hair, blue eyes [emphasis added]. A sense of humor is nice. For women, I lean toward darker features, Hispanic/Asian/African American. I generally like [a] more lipstick approach.” In articulating these preferences, Kim betrayed her earlier stance of minimizing race. By drawing attention to “blond hair, blue eyes,” she exposes a preference for a white(ned) ideal. This contrasts with her preference for darker-­skin women. However, both descriptions suggest that Kim does have some awareness of race and the ways that phenotypic features and racial characteristics impact her partner choices and indicate her preferences. In contrast to Kim, Sarah expressed much more willingness to discussing race and romance. During our interview conversation, Sarah described her own mixture (from her White British mother and Asian Indian father) and then even more mixture (a nod to her Chinese Malaysian stepdad). At once, Sarah acknowledges her stepdad’s specific heritage but blends it into the whiteness that predominated her childhood socialization: I identify more with being, well, I identify with both [white and Asian] equally and I value both equally. I just feel I’ve been more exposed to the white, I guess, the white side because my biological (Asian Indian) father didn’t raise me. My stepdad raised me. He’s Chinese but we sort of celebrated Christmas, Chinese New Year, and Indian New Year. But I went to pretty much went to all-­white schools for elementary school, and middle school, but for high school, I went to a pretty diverse high school.

Sarah illustrates ways that multiracial people can be “more than multiracial,”44 as she has been socialized by adult caregivers of similar and different racial groups than hers. She is also what I call “multiply mixed” in that she knits together and synthesizes the various influences of her blended family. This, in turn, fuses into her blended identity that is reflective of her parentage and the influence of a primary caregiver, her stepfather. Despite enjoying being (more than) multiracial, Sarah does not seize the options ostensibly available to her as an attractive light-­skinned

Disappearing Differences | 193

multiracial woman. Nevertheless, one could argue, within this racial hierarchy, Sarah gains access to the most privileged position (whiteness) and people (white men) by virtue of being perceived as implicitly white. Much like that of most of the respondents in the study, Sarah narrated a rather racially homogeneous romantic career. Instead of relying on any embodied capital or racial currency her identity affords her to choose from a broad range of options, Sarah essentially limits her choices (albeit to the group with the most currency, power, and dominance). Thus, Sarah does not experience her decisions as limitations, per se, because she feels that her desires (as opposed to anything else) inform her choices. In choosing almost exclusively choosing white (men) partners, Sarah explains: “I’ve always been attracted personally to white guys.” Despite her racial multiplicity and a celebration thereof, Sarah centers and reinscribes whiteness; her partnerships with white men, coupled with her implicit whiteness, intensify her experience of in/visible mixture. While Sarah shared more forthrightly than others, she failed to critically examine the racialized patterns and preferences evident in her romantic career. Sarah’s admission that she “mostly attracted to white guys” seemed to create some cognitive dissonance and productive tensions for her, as she reflected on what it means to be multiracial (with pride) while effectively crafting a “for whites only” romantic career. In wrestling with ideologies of white dominance (as evident in her romantic career), Sarah offered counterpoints, including two multiracial men (both of whom were white and some other race/s) whom she had also dated but described as white earlier in the interview. Rhetorically speaking, what does it suggest that many multiracial people have these preferences for romantic partners of a particular racial group (or groups)? What would it mean for implicitly white multiracials to be “discovered” (if their multiracial parentage is not known/their mixture invisible)? It is in this context of the interview conversation that many multiracial people became aware of their “preferences-­as-­patterns.” For Sarah, grappling with the reality of the racial exclusivity in her romantic carrier likely prompted her to provide the “counterevidence” (naming the multiracial men she dated). In doing so, we can also see Sarah doing some of the work of resolving that cognitive dissonance or engaging in behavior

194 | Disappearing Differences

to assuage her (implicitly white) guilt. In offering the correction (that the two men previously described as white are actually multiracial), Sarah may be trying to make sure that she does not whitewash their racial identities as she may not want others to whitewash hers.45 Additionally, she may be attempting to diversify what she comes to realize is a rather racially homogeneous pool of past romantic partners. In the moment when Sarah offers this clarification (that two of the young men she has dated are technically white multiracial men), I discovered something interesting as it relates to racial border patrolling and blending. While Sarah never indicated that she would not ever date men who were not white (or honorary white), Sarah simply never does date men outside of these two racial categories. That is, she does establish a clear pattern in her behavior. Nevertheless, Sarah defends herself in this way: “It’s not that I wouldn’t; it’s just that I always end up with people who are pretty much white, or I get attracted to them more. . . . I wouldn’t be like, ‘That’s all I would date,’ It’s just who I’m attracted to.” As scholars note, an “I wouldn’t, but you can”46 attitude prevails among white people, who express much more willingness about casual dating (as opposed to marrying or having children with) people of color and specifically black people. My research indicates a similar pattern among multiracial people with white parentage (but not among white and black multiracials). Given that romantic relationships are a two-­way street, what other explanations—­beyond implicit bias, negative perceptions, or racial attitudes—­are possible? One might wonder, given Sarah’s implicit whiteness, whether men of color avoid her to minimize their own experiences with racial hostilities and regulation from others. This view underscores the historical significance of white women weaponizing their bodies, thus becoming threats to black men.47 Much like Leilani (a white-­looking black and Hawaiian woman) who was seen as endangering her black boyfriend, perhaps Sarah is seen as similarly “dangerous.” Just as Sarah possesses preferences, so, too, do others. Acknowledging this recognizes that some men are not necessarily avoiding or rejecting her, as much as they are gravitating to like others themselves. In that case, Asian men who want to date Asian women might not immediately read Sarah as similarly Asian. As a result of her invisible mixture, men of various racial groups may overlook her as a potential partner. Although

Disappearing Differences | 195

black men might find Sarah attractive, some may want a woman who does not appear implicitly white (even if she claims a multiracial or nonwhite identity). Sarah’s narrative, like that of other white and Asian multiracial respondents, contains some of the discursive incoherence characteristic of colorblindness.48 As she is mapping out a relationship history that is more singularly focused on white (and honorary white) men than she previously realized, Sarah seems to develop a heightened awareness of her choices. In thinking more about the men who she chooses, she also has a “click” moment upon awakening to the reality of the men who choose her. As noted earlier, both she and the (white) men may be attracted to one another for a variety of reasons, their perceived mutual (or at least overlapping) whiteness a likely (if unspoken or initially understated) component of this equation. Any real or imagined fears of sounding racist can be staved off by discursive moves that prove colorblind. Avoiding obvious acknowledgments of any refusals to date people of particular races allows multiracial respondents to circumvent race when necessary. Their narratives normalize the desirability of whiteness (on multiple levels of identity, family, relationships). When they pointedly reject even the idea of dating racially similar others (not necessarily actual people in these groups but hypothetical ones representative of racial and ethnic heritage), as well as people perhaps considered too different, multiracial people replicate patterns apparent in the national population. If we see Sarah’s behavior as reflective of the larger pattern among white multiracials, and we should, we can observe the ways that multiracial individuals (who either identify as white, part white, or white plus other races except black) are aware of their racial privilege even if they make claims to the contrary. Stated otherwise, sincere admissions to not noticing the extent to which race matters is itself one way that privilege operates49 for white-­appearing and/or lighter-­skinned multiracial people.50 This stands in stark contrast with many of the perspectives of darker-­skinned multiracial people and works to reinforce racial privilege afforded white multiracial people because of their partial and/ or perceived whiteness. At once, there is a privilege to racial misrecognition, or being seen as implicitly white through invisible mixture. Remaining seen as white

196 | Disappearing Differences

and unseen as multiracial secures Sarah’s white racial group membership and attendant privilege (at the cost of keeping her mixture hidden or veiled). The invisibility of Sarah’s multiraciality makes her whiteness ostensibly more visible. These forces converge to create a conundrum for multiracials who work to embrace their in/visible mixture. Sarah’s experience illustrates how in/visible mixture operates on individual and relational levels: most people cannot tell she is multiracial (white and Asian) or that her current partner (at the time of the interview) is a white multiracial (Latinx) man. Their relationship has overlapping parts (shared whiteness). From the outside looking in, they optically appear to be a white couple, not an interracial one. The privilege here relates to both whiteness and invisibility51 as both offer protection. Implicitly white multiracials in relationship with white people may subversively enjoy being an “interracial” couple that hides in plain sight. Such invisible mixture, at relational levels, can protect members of invisibly mixed interracial couples from others’ hostility and opposition to their interracial intimacy. Sarah could be read as disappearing differences. By sustaining an exclusively white romantic career and being read as implicitly white, Sarah also sustains a public perception that she is singularly white. This (mis)perception erases her multiraciality and perpetuates the possibility of individual and relational invisible mixture hiding in plain sight.

“Lighter Skin, Nice Hair, Nice Eyes . . . That’s Just My Preference,” or “If I’m Gonna Be Racist, I’m Going to Be Racist toward Everybody” Among the collective black multiracial members of my sample, a similar idealization of whiteness played out. For some respondents, reflecting on their romantic careers—­actual and aspirational—­revealed conflicting perspectives. Even from their precarious position on the fault lines of race, some individuals perpetuate racial stereotypes, reify race or reproduce racial divisions in problematic ways, cement their investment in a racial hierarchy that privileges whiteness, and glorify unearned privileges granted to multiracial people of various combinations. Take, for example, Sa, a brown-­skinned multiracial woman who expressed conflicting ideas about her racial preferences in dating. While

Disappearing Differences | 197

she imagined that she and white men would have little in common, she also found herself thinking this: “You know what? I’m not messing with black dudes no more [sic]. I’m fitting to get a white dude.” Like I’ve said that so many times, and me and my sister have said that, and I don’t even know what prompted me to say that . . . as if white guys are any different than black guys because they can do the same things. They can cheat in the same ways. . . . I’ll make certain comments, and then I’ll be like, “I can’t believe that I just said that.” Like, “that was really racial.” But . . . at least I can admit when I’m being racist or at least, you know what I’m saying, I don’t know. And that’s one thing like, if I’m gonna be racist, I’m going to be racist toward everybody.

Like Sa, many of the black multiracial women respondents expressed contradictory positions on their identity and partner choice. Several spoke of being racially rejected specifically by white men yet described feeling repulsed by the thought of being in relationships with them. Instead, they identified a preference for men with medium skin tone “who are probably multiracial.” Sa admitted to being attracted to them not because of potential shared (multiracial) identity but because of their “lighter skin, nice hair, nice eyes, but that’s just my preference.” She catches a “lot of flack for that” (being so forthright about her preferences). She explained: People look at me as being like somewhat racist, or somewhat on the whole light skin/dark skin thing and I’m just like, “That’s just my preference.” Like if a guy wants a girl with a nice body, that’s his preference. You can’t say that he’s racist because he doesn’t want to date a fat girl. But I’m racist because I don’t want to date a dark-­skinned guy?! I just don’t find that many dark-­skinned guys that are attractive to me. But if I did find a dark-­skinned guy that was attractive, I wouldn’t just be like, “Oh, no. I’m not talking to you because you’re dark-­skinned.” I would never do that. So I catch a lot of flack for that. But most of my boyfriends, I’ve never had a boyfriend that’s, per se, dark-­skinned. I haven’t. And my last boyfriend that I actually had, he was like, he was multiracial, you could say. Like he had Indian in his family so he had like high cheekbones and all that going on or whatever, nice hair that was long, so that was like my last relationship.

198 | Disappearing Differences

In mixing metaphors, Sa confuses and conflates body size with race, making looksism and sexism seem acceptable or deserving of accommodation. Furthermore, she excuses her racialized preferences in partner choice by making the exception the rule, pointing to one ostensible example of her willingness to date someone with dark skin. Her narrative betrays her, sounding more like what I call a “confession of a transgression” rather than evidence in her favor. In reflecting on an earlier conversation with someone, Sa reveals contradictions that emerged in this admission: Someone was asking, “Have you ever dated a white guy?” and you know, “Could you see yourself with a white guy?” and I’m like, as much as I can say, “Yes,” like, “Yes, I would talk to a white guy and I would have no problem marrying a white guy, I couldn’t realistically see myself in a relationship with a white guy.” . . . . I don’t think that he would be able to deal with me as a person. . . . And then what messes me up is just watching a lot of like white sex scenes on television, just discourages me, like I see the white sex scenes on television and I’m like, “Oh my God. White people can’t kiss. Like, “Oh my God, white people this or that, or whatever.” . . . I think television like kind of like brainwashed me. . . . It turns me off on that or whatever.

Unconvinced that a “white boy could really relate to me and the things that I like to do,” Sa contradicts her earlier assertions while highlighting the importance of racial literacy and empathy as a requisite skill or quality that an ideal partner would possess. Here, Sa’s disqualification of white men as potential partners indicates her unwillingness to seriously consider them viable contenders in her romantic career. Their presumed lack of compatibility (no shared or matching interests), alongside an imagined lack of necessary qualities (an ability to empathize with her reality), placed them outside of her pool of potentials. Sa’s position may seem curious given the variety of interests she has and the possibility that people of all races can likewise cultivate a plethora of interests and hobbies as well, especially over the course of spending time with and getting to know someone. Alternately, Sa’s comments draw attention to a racial empathy gap. Within that space, where racialized experiences do not always translate across racial categories,

Disappearing Differences | 199

Sa (like many multiracials) runs the risk of being wounded by injurious words or ignorant ideas or inflicted with the pain of misunderstandings, microaggressions, and more. Later in our interview conversation, Sa also suggests that partnering with someone multiracial would not necessarily ensure complete understanding, as similarity in familial ancestries, and perhaps personal biographies/histories may be minimal. Nevertheless, she maintains her investment in lightness, as narrated through a commitment to finding a man with medium tone (perhaps as an affirmation of her own skin color). Other black multiracial women respondents shared similarly conflicting positions, perhaps desiring white privilege more than white men themselves. As a result, they preferred men with lighter (but not white) skin. They averted attention from darker-­skinned men. One respondent, Abigail, a black and Native American multiracial woman, even went so far as to fetishize men with a “flavor difference” (with an accent, non-­ American but “not African”) or who were something more than “vanilla,”52 while Grace (with a similar mix to Abigail) indicated her partner preference for this medium tone, as well as “cleaner”-­looking people (an expression I ultimately interpret as indicative of internalized racism since the term seemed to be a reference for whiter/lighter-­looking people). Jamie, a black and white multiracial woman, initially insisted: “I wouldn’t date a white man. . . . I wouldn’t. I don’t know. I just can’t do it. . . . I just couldn’t, knowing about the past.” Later, she admitted that, having seen other relatives pass as white and reject darker family members, she remains fearful of intimately experiencing this racial rejection should she partner and/or procreate with a white man: “If you’re black, and you marry a white man, and y’all have kids and they come out light, and they go marry a white person, and it’s gonna get lighter and lighter and lighter, until they return back to being white and then you no longer exist. You just—­they’re not even going to acknowledge you as family.” She also declared, “I can’t deal with nobody dark-­skinned. Dark skin, I can’t do it.” Jamie would only accommodate blackness-­as-­the-­ lightness-­of-­beauty; because her perception of physical attractiveness is informed by an idealized lightness (amid feared whiteness), she makes it a requisite characteristic for her potential partners to possess for her to consider going out with them.

200 | Disappearing Differences

The irony of Jamie’s comments seems lost on her. She talks about having a best friend, a woman with dark skin, yet practically balks at the idea of dating a man with dark skin. While she refuses to date white men, she also refuses to date men with dark skin. Consistent with the literature on homophyly53 and homogeny,54 Jamie seems to be describing potential partners that match her phenotype or physical appearance. While she admittedly holds conflicting views on race and remains confused over some racial matters, she stood firm in her convictions about acceptable and appropriate romantic partners. Both she and Sa appear eager to partner with phenotypically similar men, in an attempt to re-­create or replicate matching hues—­racial resemblance, really—­in their potential offspring. By doing so, they ultimately affirm their own appearance while enjoying the embodied capital of their multiraciality. This works to ensure their continued access to the unearned privileges that they enjoy in the beauty queue and in a society that values their ambiguous appearance.55 In un/intentional ways, both Jamie and Sa, among other respondents, participate in the possessive investment of whiteness56 through their own racial regulation and border-­patrolling behavior. The preservation of these racial (and gendered) privileges provides partial explanation for this behavior that many multiracial individuals exhibit. In elaborating on the beauty queue and the gendered racial hierarchy that rewards lightness in women,57 Abigail noted: I personally believe that a lot of black men, I mean a lot of Black men, because I observed them looking, including my kid’s father to all the guys I’ve dated, that they are strongly, not only black men, I think the whole world of men are attracted to women who are tannish-­looking. Not black, but tannish-­looking. More like Hawaiian or Latina, you know, not straight hair, but wavy, you know, maybe not pointy nose but a little bit of a curve. It’s like a mixture of all of them, the women look like that. It’s amazing because I personally feel like there are no men left for us, because all men, a lot of men are with mixed women or women that look like Halle Berry, you know?

While reifying black stereotypes, Abigail drew attention to the ways that black women are desired by men who “wanted to be with you because of that old myth: the blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice, which I

Disappearing Differences | 201

really believe is so true, we got it going on! Hee hee. But at the same time, when it came to going out and what you wanted to look like when you go out, that was the token [mixed] look to me.” That is, as a black and Native American woman with dark skin, Abigail coveted the status of the “quintessential multiracial woman” who is valorized for her lighter skin, and preferred (read: exoticized) by various groups of men. “I always think the hybrid come out sometimes more prettier [sic] so I always use that analogy for myself which makes me not dislike and hate the yellow woman, because I’ve been told that I did [hate them]. I used to have that problem.” When I attempt to validate Abigail’s mixture by pointing out that some might consider her a “hybrid” as well, she agrees. However, because she asserts a singular black identity for the most part, she acknowledges but does not exactly embrace this mixture. She believes that her skin color is too dark to facilitate her claiming an uncontested multiracial identity in public spaces. Unable to see how both mixed and black women often get fetishized, Abigail neglects the potential for connection or solidarity between herself and other women. Instead, she reinforces the competition and antagonism between women through admissions such as this: A friend who’s lighter than me, and older, she gets the guys. “Your old ass is getting this attention. You are older than dirt.” We’ve had plenty of discussions and I always put her down because she is that light skinned thing. A lot of women were told in their homes that they were better than the black girl across the street. I’ve observed it.

Understandably, Abigail perceived men’s preferential treatment of lighter-­skinned women as threatening and devaluing. She pointedly differentiates between women with lighter and darker skin by explaining, “So, you know they were screwing me behind closed doors, but their girlfriend[s] or their wives look like you [clearly mixed]. [I was] The Jezebel. Yeah, that stuff goes on.” In the front stage, many men may socially or sexually prefer clearly mixed-­race or lighter-­skinned women, viewing them as more marriageable58 while behind closed doors, in the backstage, they can sexually consume black women without contaminating their public image.59 “It’s like you’re doing this in the dark; you’re doing this in secret.” Abigail suggests that even if these men might want

202 | Disappearing Differences

to go public with their desires, they choose not to because of the social devaluation of black women and the perceived risk involved in exposing their interracial intimacy and/or romantic relationships, specifically with dark-­skinned black women; this practice not only cements the pigmentocracy60 in this society but also affirms the myth of “marriageable” lighter-­skin women and “f***able” darker-­skin women,61 making some women decent, moral, and desirable in wide-­ranging ways while narrowing black women to objects of sexual desire, again.62 Interestingly, Abigail possesses racial mixture even though she chooses not to claim it in her everyday life. Arguably, this mixture that she simultaneously and contradictorily acknowledged and denied could inform the interpellation of others. This “mestizaje”63 means that others might see her mixture and exoticize and eroticize her accordingly.64 Even though she confidently presents herself as attractive, she also implies that she is not deserving of men’s attention (based on the racialized mechanisms of the beauty queue). The juxtaposition of these contradictory positions queers Abigail’s racial identity, entangling exaltation and abjection, “beauty” with “ugly.”65 Abigail possesses a complex assortment of emotions and a developed sense of awareness of the different ways that women line up in the beauty queue and are treated by men. Despite this, she contradicts this in discussing her own perceptions of men; she effectively arranges men into hierarchies of her own, forming a beauty queue for them as well. She admitted, “I’ve gone out with a lot of light skinned men. . . . I was married once to a half Cherokee/half African American man. . . . His skin was so very white. . . . He had gone to Vietnam twice, and got mistaken for Vietnamese. . . . He looked very Indian, more Asian.” She also revealed: “I would not be attracted to white men. If they took off their shirt, I think I’d probably be sick to my stomach, and I have a co-­worker who has a multiracial baby. She met this professor at a local university. I said, ‘How do you get in bed with that?’ And she’s like, ‘It’s the same, Abigail. It’s the same!’ You know?” Abigail remained relatively unconvinced, despite admitting to finding a few white men television or movie actors attractive (since they appear tan on TV versus what she calls “mash white” or pale whiteness, e.g., Colin Farrell, her reference). In sum, the irony of Abigail being targeted for and perpetuating racially discriminatory or biased behavior confounds (because she both experiences and perpetuates racial

Disappearing Differences | 203

bias). However, as the interviews revealed, the participants manage conflicting preferences, as well as complex and contradictory positions within the racial hierarchy and their own interracial families.

Disappearing Difference, and Other Self-­Protective Strategies, or “When I Date Someone of the Same Skin Color, People Don’t Even Question It” If I date someone a lot like me, then no one questions me. They think that we are a [black, not interracial] couple. —­Vanessa, an African American–­identified woman

If one of the hazards of being multiracial in an interracial relationship is looking “clearly mixed,” then perhaps that offers partial explanation for some of the choices made within romantic careers. What if some of the reasons multiracial people have un/consciously developed “preferences” relates to frequently feeling scrutinized by others for these very choices? Being strategic and selective, then, can be read as more than a potentially problematic or beneficiary mechanism. In this way, choices become protective. Under the veil of invisibility, both individually and relationally, multiracial people may enjoy greater freedom and autonomy, even within what might look like greater constraints (a narrowed pool of eligibles). A paradox exists or emerges when multiracial people border patrol their own partner choice as a way of evading racial border patrolling from others. In the circuitous scheme of things, some respondents would not consider dating people that they imagined would not consider dating them (even if this imagination was based on speculation rather than actual rejection). Additionally, with any fear or anticipation of rejection, respondents would engage in self-­protective behavior. They did so not because of their dislike of people in other racial groups but because of previous experiences with microaggressions, antagonisms, or rejections from individuals in those groups. Wanting to avoid these injurious acts or feeling illegible as a desirable potential partner prompted some respondents to opt for familiarity and the comfort of racial solidarity. Some multiracial respondents made identities and partner choices that simplified their (racial) lives. For example, Keisha observed, “It’s

204 | Disappearing Differences

hard to explain to people [about my racially mixed heritage], so I’d rather not deal with it.” Keisha, among others, talked at one point or another during the interview about others perceiving her as and accusing her of “acting white.” During high school, Keisha “spoke to” a white guy but never got romantically serious with him because all her friends would ask if the two were dating. They would say, she recalls, “He acts black.” Keisha was not the only person to face this irony of interracial dating: she was a black-­identified woman accused of “acting white,” and he was a white-­identified man who was accused of “acting black.” If they did not symbolically succeed at “looking like” an interracial couple, then they did so by being perceived as “acting” counter to their race (effectively remaining racial “opposites” behaviorally if not racially). Conceptions and accusations of “acting white” and “acting black” not only solidify racial categories; they also make behaving outside of racially hegemonic terms nearly impossible (or not without consequence). The policing of these respondents’ (and their potential or real partners’) behavior impacts not only how they understand themselves racially but whether they are willing to get involved interracially with anyone perceived as even the slightest bit different as well. Because so much behavior gets coded racially, everyday actions get (mis)read as “black” or “white,” which also illustrates the pervasion of the regulation of race (alongside the regulation of romance). Choosing a romantic partner that intensified the regulation a person may already feel becomes infinitely less desirable in the scheme of things. Instead, and to the point a respondent made earlier, it is easier for people to elide the attention of others by choosing a romantic partner whose appearance approximates their own rather than be subjected to the scrutiny and surveillance of others eager to regulate race and romance. Consider the experience of Vanessa, a black-­identified young woman of African American, Native American, and white parentage. During our interview conversation, she explained the patterns in her romantic career, including that she partners with men who share some racial resemblance with, or appear phenotypically similar, to her. She admitted to doing so to fly under the racial radar and avoid “the talks and the stares,” or “eye questions.”66 The practice of “skin color coding,” or “race matching,”67 helps Vanessa elide attention, since people view her through a lens of homophyly

Disappearing Differences | 205

and homogamy: “If I date someone a lot like me, then no one questions me. They think that we are a ‘couple.’” That is, when people see Vanessa with a black man [any black man], they likely read them as “a couple,” but when she is with a white man, they see the two as “friends.” This inability to read romance interracially could be reflective of people’s opposition to interracial intimacy, their antagonism toward visible racial mixture, their investment in homogamy, or the (in)frequency with which they see particular raced and gendered combinations of interracial couples (and even friendships, to the secondary point). While Vanessa is effectively disciplining her own desires based on the regulation of race (knowing that she can avoid or minimize racialized attention if she chooses a romantic partner with similar skin tone), she activates her agency and choice within these constraints. She circumvents a lot of adverse attention, to both her identity and partner choice, by partnering with someone who blends, versus brightens, her racial borders, and theirs, when they are together.68 While she acknowledged ambivalent and tentative feelings about dating nonblack men, Vanessa appeared more interested in avoiding others’ regulation of her racial identity and intimate romantic partner choices. She volunteered her strategy for managing the unsolicited attention of others: To try to avoid more problems that’s already going on in my family, I think I am more attracted to black guys. But I think it wouldn’t be a problem if I dated outside of the race. I just try to keep that not such a big deal. . . . There is no reason I haven’t dated outside of my race. [My current boyfriend] is just a person I like, I was attracted to. We had similar interests and he just happened to be African American.

Because Vanessa admits her partner’s race impacts both their experiences, as a couple, as well as her experience within said romantic relationships, race remains relevant, not inconsequential, to her as it compounds her individual interactions with others as well. Being clearly mixed individually but being able to enjoy more invisible mixture in her relationships allows Vanessa to dodge much of others’ unsolicited, potentially antagonistic attention.69 Vanessa seriously dislikes, and experiences great displeasure, in being racially regulated (on individual,

206 | Disappearing Differences

relational, and familial levels) by others. She reportedly wants to avoid “going through a lot of hassle.” Her choice to partner with someone whose approximation of her skin color supports her objective of avoiding racial inquiries (at best) and hostilities (at worst). It generally minimizes the racial regulation that she faces, but this decision can be falsely read as a self-­regulated choice (a choice made from a limited number of options). Rather than see her world shrink in this way, it could be argued that Vanessa expands her world by knowing what comforts and discomforts her. She actively moves toward that which comforts her while avoiding that which discomforts her. Beyond racial resemblance provided some protection, racial literacy and empathy provided the comfort they needed to navigate the racism that discomfited them. These considerations of affective labor, or the work that multiracial people do to publicly manage racial borders (mostly for others), often do not get acknowledged. That is, as the two are frequently entangled (making romantic partner choices and then having to affectively and socially manage those choices), people remain increasingly aware of and attentive to how, counterintuitively, choosing from a narrower pool of partners may generate more freedom as a result of dodging much of the racial regulation that visibly mixed people in visibly mixed relationships frequently face. Vanessa’s negotiations of color lines and racial border crossings help us wrestle with her admission about white men—­that she rejects their advances. By framing her identity and partner choice in colorblind discursive practices, she tries to conceal the reality that race is a criterion for her, expressly because partnering with someone racially (physically/ phenotypically) similar to her satisfies her desire to avoid unwanted public attention. Her aversion to this racialized surveillance conceals any potential opposition she personally possesses regarding forming a visibly “interracial” relationship of her own.70 In avoiding border patrolling others and choosing blackness for both her own racial identity and partner choice, Vanessa can be understood as asserting her agency, affirming her identity, and engaging in racial border patrolling herself, albeit of the self-­protective variety. Her (understandable) displeasure with serving as a racial spectacle to others, individually and/or relationally, reduces her pool of eligibles. Unless or until Vanessa grows more

Disappearing Differences | 207

comfortable with the spectacularity of her multiraciality, she will likely continue to partner with people who allow her to effectively “disappear difference.” “Disappearing difference” is a strategy that I understood many multiracial respondents to employ as a means of eliding others attention, whether aggressive, acrimonious, or more neutral. For many multiracial women in my sample, disappearing difference also became a strategy for maneuvering around gendered racism.71 The intersectional oppression of gendered racism often results in multiracial women feeling not only fetishized and elevated for the particular convergence of their categorical identities but also devalued and denigrated for those same social locations.72 If you recall from earlier, some of the multiracial respondents in my sample reported facing racial border patrolling from their romantic partners, so it makes sense that they would choose partners who (1) did not engage in this border-­patrolling behavior or (2) minimized the effect of being a racial spectacle or a visible “interracial” couple. Some respondents chose romantic partners guided as much by their romantic desire as their interest in minimizing the racialized attention they were accustomed to but generally disliked. Like Vanessa, Lisa and Leilani indicated their romantic attraction to and preference for black men, expressing some anxieties about dating “interracially.” Lisa, a Puerto Rican–­identified woman, mentioned having difficulty recognizing any bids for her attention from, or registering the advances of, white men as “romantic” ones. Lisa shared: I actually went out on a date and didn’t know it was a date, with a white guy. And it was different. I don’t know how to explain it. . . . He said he wanted to take me, I think, out to eat. And to me, “out to eat”—­I don’t really consider that a date. Maybe that’s wrong on my part. So we went out to eat and I figured it was just, we were just, eating. And after that we were driving around and he was like, showing me different areas, like the park, you know, a certain kind of park, and the amusement or attractions or whatever. And then when he took me home, he was like, um, ‘So, when am I going to see you again?’ And I was like, “Oh! Okay! So he wants to see me again!”

It was only then that Lisa deciphered the code words to arrive at the conclusion that the two had been on a date. Before that moment, her

208 | Disappearing Differences

“definition of the situation” differed from his.73 Until the request to “see [her] again” became more decipherable to her as a “date,” Lisa had some difficulty seeing, or simply did not know to interpret, the social interaction as a budding romantic one or an incipient interest on the man’s part. Lisa’s initial inability, but not refusal, to see the situation as a “date” shows some of the difficulty in deciphering other people’s interests, especially when crossing color lines is involved. Lisa’s comments reveal the extent to which people internalize these color lines, more comfortably crossing them for friendships but often remaining reluctant (or refusing) to cross them for romantic relationships. Her example shows the interactional work that two people (in social positions or racial locations considered “different”) to recognize, register, and even be receptive to romantic interest. These dimensions add a layer of complexity to, and can compound, the work that people do in forming any romantic relationships. Leilani was another respondent who engaged in some forms of self-­ protective border-­patrolling behavior. Like many other respondents, she grew up with parents or other family members who border patrolled her identity and partner choice(s). Because they saw her as black (in contrast to strangers’ perception of Leilani as white or perhaps “some other race/s”), they expected her to date black men: I wouldn’t necessarily say those men that aren’t black are unattractive. I just, I guess, I would never think about dating them. . . . For one thing, I feel like when I was younger, my mother instilled in me that I should bring home a black man. And I guess I’m still holding on to that. . . . I feel that even though she has never expressed it, if I were to bring home a white male, she would have a little bit of a problem. I wouldn’t say a problem, but she maybe has concerns about it.

While Leilani does not elaborate on or identify any specific “problems” or “concerns” her mother possibly associates with her daughter dating a white man, one can speculate that her mother is concerned about her daughter’s well-­being and safety, as well as her happiness. Her mother might see that Leilani’s racially ambiguous appearance could potentially provoke antagonistic attention, were Leilani to partner with a visibly white man.

Disappearing Differences | 209

By implicitly dissuading this arrangement, Leilani’s mother is engaging in parental border patrolling, itself a variation of protective border patrolling. Through this messaging, she effectively encourages Leilani to disappear difference. Leilani’s mother presumably imagines that her daughter will minimize unwanted or antagonistic partnering with someone who might arguably better approximate her physical appearance. However, because many people misperceive or misrecognize Leilani as white, she still encounters possibly antagonistic and acrimonious responses from others who respond to her differently, depending, in part, on how they read her racial mixture individually and relationally.

Conclusion For many of the multiracial respondents who are white and some other race (besides black), patterned preferences emerged. Whiteness remained central in their romantic careers, with invisible mixture enabling many respondents to access white privilege by virtue of their perceived or implicit whiteness. That most of these respondents had exclusively or predominantly white romantic careers gestures at the ways that “multiracial” likely meant “multiracial with a white emphasis.” Among multiracial respondents with known black ancestry, whiteness worked differently. While whiteness was recognized as ideal, many respondents noted the extent to which whiteness was off-­limits to them in terms of their individual identity and their partner choices. Instead, they often chose partners who resembled them. In everyday ways and in their romantic relationships, invisibly mixed multiracial people maintained invisibly interracial relationships. One could see partner choice as an un/intentional strategy for disappearing difference. However, disappearing difference only partially remedies the predicament that racism and colorism creates for racially mixed people. It offers little protection from people’s questions, interrogations, and imposition, much less their anger, frustration, and intolerance about interracial intimacy. Managing racial mixture includes anticipating or responding to the vast array of readings by people trying to racially locate them; multiracial people are also placed in social situations where they are expected to explain their choice of racial identity, romantic partner, and even friends. As people react to these set of choices multiracials make, the

210 | Disappearing Differences

latter must gauge any level of threat and the attendant costs of making (and defending) those choices publicly (especially when called on to do so). As multiracial people see that they may be in harm’s way, they may reframe their identities and relationships to minimize microaggressions or other potentially assaultive encounters. They disappear difference to dodge these harmful dynamics.

Conclusion Where Do We Go from Here?

The efforts of the multiracial movement, in its energetic push to help ensure that individuals could formally choose “two or more races” as their preferred racial identity, reflect the groundswell of grassroots activism.1 So much momentum built up to the Census 2000 survey, the first time people with racially mixed parentage or heritage could formally claim their mixture. Having the ability to “check all that apply”2 made visible members of the national population who were previously hiding in plain sight. Given the numerous racial identity options that individuals assert and from which they choose, it is evident that multiracial people have a variety of ways of expressing their self-­understanding when it comes to race. Having the freedom to choose from these available options stands in stark contrast to different historical moments when choice was arguably much more constrained. Interestingly, the current historical moment has opened up new possibilities and hints at what is ahead. What does the future hold in terms of new expressions and understandings of racial identity? What might the emergent data from the most recent Census survey (2020) reveal about how people are choosing to assert their formal racial identities? How do these public preferences align with or depart from privately held ones? This historical moment, in the heat of intensified violence—­especially evident in its persistent anti-­blackness—­also opens the possibility of an intentional anchoring in particular racial categories. As multiracial people continue to navigate racial borders, they will also continue to be confronted with “racial fault lines”3 that are arguably growing. The increasing gap, or racial divide, between racial groups may produce interesting, if not wholly predictable, results. Speculatively, multiracial blacks may begin to identify as “just black,”4 not simply because of regional or 211

212 | Conclusion

geographical reasons but also for political ones. Expressing racial solidarity in this moment may mean “opting for black” in ways that depart from the implicit blackness often associated with being a multiracial black person. Choosing blackness then reflects an intentionality of identity; it takes on a different meaning, potentially signaling a racial solidarity and loyalty that have not only long been desired but also questioned. Alternately, this moment might exacerbate lingering tensions influenced and informed by colorism and racism. Multiracial black people might continue to confront the paradox of being seen as implicitly black and, curiously, “not black enough.” Managing the productive tensions between being seen as always already and/or inauthentically black may be a conundrum that people with any known African ancestry will wrestle with for years to come. For multiracial people of other racial combinations, the opportunity to align with blackness in the struggle against anti-­black racism generates the chance to build alliances. From there, interpersonal and systemic racism, in its sedimentation in society, can be challenged. Patterned inequalities in education, employment, housing, health care, the law, and more can be questioned, and effectively dismantled, through strategic alliances and shared social action. Racial retrenchment can be disrupted as more people learn to see the humanity in everyone and the collective wins in creating equity in society.5 The growing multiracial population in the United States speaks to this potential being actualized, as well as remaining largely unrealized dreams for a democratic society. As noted earlier, new social dynamics are working as push and pull forces that persuade multiracial people to see where they have access to racial privilege and where they do not. Attempts to access said privilege often result in forming alliances with the dominant group, which then works to maintain systems of domination. Resisting the impulse to access racial privilege would not work in favor of the respective multiracial individuals pursuing such privilege; however, it might work in the service of others. In a society that values and promotes individualism, we see evidence that multiracial individuals make choices regarding their racial identity and romantic partners that secure racial privilege—­or reflect their inability to access much of it—­given their location within the racial hierarchy.

Conclusion | 213

Multiracial people located closer to whiteness often “opt for white,”6 or they operate under implicit whiteness, and their multiraciality becomes invisible mixture. They mute out their racial mixture through partner choices that create the appearance of predominant patterns: same-­race relationships. Even as emergent data from the American Community Survey indicates an increase in interracial relationships in the United States, one must wonder what said relationships look like. When visualized on websites, for instance, racial difference may be subtle, but it is also apparent. What does it mean that a portion of all interracial relationships involve multiracial people and that those relationships may or may not look interracial or even be considered as such by one or both members of the respective couples? The increase in cohabiting interracial relationships or partnerships, from 6 percent to 10 percent, is both a celebratory and cautionary tale.7 Amid the impulse to rely on colorblind discourses to dodge difficult conversations about race and racism, many individuals deny the continuing significance of both. As I discussed in chapter 2, racial attitudes about interracial relationships and marriage are hard to accurately gauge, given individual impulses to appear accommodating of difference. It is possible that people who are opposed to interracial relationships know people who are in them but do not know this because of any in/visible mixture. That such relatively low rates of interracial cohabitation, partnership, and marriage exist suggests that people remain more tentative about such relationships than they might comfortably admit to in public. In addition to any ambivalence, or even opposition to interracial intimacy, structurally society has been designed to uphold its racial divides. Racial residential segregation, racially homophyletic social networks, blocked opportunities from gendered racism, and other issues create barriers to everyday interactions between individuals of different racial groups and racial combinations, where multiracial people are concerned. Even in the most mundane of circumstances, some members of the dominant group weaponize their whiteness as a way of maintaining dominance in whitespaces.8 An example of this emerged in Starbucks years ago with the policing of two black men; more recently, public parks and various facilities have been implicitly understood, and explicitly

214 | Conclusion

defended, as whitespaces where racial Others are viewed as trespassing, effectively criminalized for swimming, grilling, or enjoying any assortment of recreational activities. If people in public spaces cannot collaborate smoothly enough for everyone to enjoy said spaces, how might they move into more intimate conversations and/or relationships? Crossing the color lines remains fraught with the potential for harm. Comparisons and contrasts to previous historical moments urge an optimism that is unfounded; that is, it is difficult to say that race relations are better than they have previously been. (Perhaps one can frame the current circumstances as less worse.) It is also difficult to advance the tired trope that multiracial people will blend racial borders to the extent that they will manifest the very colorblind future that so many people seem genuinely invested in believing is already real. When multiracial people replicate patterns in romantic relationships that uphold the racial hierarchy, that behavior, individually and collectively, demonstrates the power of race. Even as an illusion, race is real. It shapes people’s quality of life, including the choices that are available to them, without or without constraint. Making the decision to engage in interracial intimacy at a time of intensified racialized hostility and violence, and racial retrenchment, results in people entering romantic relationships with not only caution but also intention. For multiracial people with light-­skin privilege, forming romantic careers with individuals who enhance their access to racial privilege played out in my research. So, too, did the pattern of multiracial people with dark skin color aligning with collective blacks or otherwise enveloping themselves in categorical blackness. In these ways, multiracial people reinforce, rather than erode, the contemporary racial hierarchy. This is both curious and understandable. In the latter scenario, it makes sense that multiracial individuals who are aware of the currency of white racial privilege work to align themselves accordingly. Any internalized racism leaves that pursuit of privilege unchallenged rather than interrogated. In the former case, it still proves puzzling that people disappear difference to secure said privileges. If these patterns persistent, researchers’ predictions or anticipations about reinventing, shifting, or blurring color lines will fall short of reality. Despite demographic shifts in the national population toward this very racial mixture, more and more people seem to be asserting their racial identities and choosing

Conclusion | 215

romantic partners that maintain their in/visible mixture. In this way, multiraciality will continue to exist widely in society while hiding in plain sight. So much of the theoretical promise that circulated in the national imaginary ended up getting projected upon the ubiquitous multiracial person, popularly dubbed a part of “Generation E.A.”9 Amid these projections and aspirations, multiracial people did not prove to be the racial border blenders they had the imagined promise to be. Instead, my research reveals that multiracial people choose racial identities and romantic partners that often make their racial mixture in/visible. That is, they disappear difference into seemingly cohesive racial categories. Thus, the grand visions that multiracial people would help usher in a post-­racial utopia on the heels of the changes to the Census back in 2000 have all but been realized. Some multiracial people are often opting out of claiming their racially mixed parentage and heritage. They are also often opting out of interracial relationships (to the degree that they are partnering in ways that veil racial difference). This masks the multiracial person’s racial difference from their partner and others, making their romantic relationship look like a racially homogeneous one rather than the interracial one that it could be considered to be. Multiracial people may choose romantic relationships that affirm their racial identity or that their preferred racial identity into question. Their appearance (individually and/or relationally) may also call into question whether theirs is an interracial relationship. What happens when multiracial people encounter resistance to their romantic relationships, when others (incorrectly) perceive them as being a part of an interracial relationship or misrecognize their individual and relational identities? Throughout this book, I explored these questions. In building on the idea that interracial intimacy involves individuals who may claim membership in multiple racial groups, I also explored how racially mixed people make these claims in their everyday lives. I investigated their choices in terms of their preferred racial identity and intimate romantic relationship partners to better understand the variations in racial identity formation and multiracial migrations (as their racial identity remains fluid and flexible) they experience.

216 | Conclusion

Over the course of my investigation, I discovered how prevalent the regulation of race and romance remained, as experienced by racially mixed people. By examining and untangling the power asymmetries that frame social and sexual relations, I interrogated the ways racial categories are constructed, protected, or defended and destabilized in society and by the growing presence of people who claim various racial identities as racially mixed people and form romantic careers that often curiously reinforce racial boundaries. Studying this shifting mixture proves not only quite interesting but also challenging. My research points to a broader challenge for scholars studying race and racial identity; shortcomings to studying racial fluidity in survey form speak to new methodological dilemmas that researchers face when studying race and racial identity. This is especially the case, given the shifting mixture operating not only at individual levels but at a national one as well. With demographic trends moving toward a majority-­minority society and a steadily increasing multiracial population, researchers are well poised to take up this charge. How can we adequately document any fluidity in racial identity to accurately depict this shifting mixture? As I continue to wrestle with these questions myself, I invite others to assume this charge. Figuring out creative ways to capture the fluidity of race would further nuance current understandings of the continuity and change in preferred racial identity (and racial consciousness) over people’s lifetimes. Another possibility opens up in being able to document such shifting: capturing the attendant shifts in people with singular races. While some research on interracial couples and families suggests a stability and permanence to racial identity, perhaps even an adamant yet understandable refusal to change preferred racial identity,10 other research suggests that preferred racial identity remains more porous or permeable. While the latter could be seen as a dissolution or diminishing of one’s “real” race for something akin to an inherited one, I would argue that there is, or should be, space to accommodate both: stability and fluidity. As I illustrate in this book, race remains stable for some, an anchor within a racial group in which membership is largely ascribed, innate in the sense of inheritance, not at the risk of reifying the idea that race is real in a biological sense. Alternately, race proves porous such that people can not only move around within them, socially, but also cross

Conclusion | 217

racial lines, sometimes intentionally but often not. As the participants in my research study shared with me, navigating race is tricky business. The current racial paradigm, and racial hierarchy, incentivizes certain choices while continuing to punish or penalize others. For multiracial people, making choices about preferred racial identity is not as straightforward as picking “the most salient” race in their known heritage. Now (maybe then, as well), deciding how to assert preferred racial identities rests in a context (or absence) of un/available terms, names that multiracial people can call home to reflect their particular combinations. Even as the grammar grows to describe “the multiracial experience,” we, as a society, recognize the plurality of that experience. We also recognize the multiplicity of meanings in some of the same terms. An easy example here relates to the very words so central to my research study: multiracial and interracial. In this book, I illustrate that there is a multitude of ways that people live these two terms. They do not mean the exact same thing to different people. Recognizing this also requires honors these distinctions, or the differences in the ways people experience them. Identifying as “multiracial” or knowing what counts as an “interracial” relationship has, ironically, become easier (amid the growing but still statistically small number of interracial relationships in the country) and harder (given the lack of consistency and continuity in who counts as racially different enough to create the space between—­the “inter”—­and what counts as “interracial” as a result). This project is pushing for more engagement with these questions, because the in/visibility of interracial intimacy has an impact in the way we imagine our futures forward. If an increasing number of people who are racially mixed have invisible mixture and they enter romantic relationships that look implicitly monoracial, how might we accurately measure the “progress” so eagerly imposed on the very people who (1) do not necessarily consider themselves multiracial any longer, (2) do not consider their romantic relationships to be racialized in any way, and, by extension, (3) thus do not see said relationship as an “interracial” one? The dilemmas that I discussed throughout the book nudge us to collectively think mixture and think through some of the puzzles that mixture has created. For researchers like myself, this quest involves figuring out new ways of studying shifting mixture, or of exploring if individuals

218 | Conclusion

never, seldom, sometimes, most of the time, or always identify as “multiracial.” It also calls on researchers to consider how to capture movement between the various racial groups in people’s parentage and heritage. It is fascinating to imagine and acquire insight about how people navigate the social landscape when they experientially feel this shifting mixture. It is equally compelling to take up the charge of figuring out this choreography and finding ways to narrate these sometimes casual, sometimes carefully coordinated moves that multiracial people make as they dance around color lines.11 In a world that has persistently promoted anti-­black racism, the study of where multiracial people locate themselves proves as important a topic now as it did circa Loving v. Virginia. Recently, intensified racialized violence has provoked reactionary violence, exposing, if not amplifying, existing racial fault lines. As people are being implored to learn the language of liberation, in part through more concerted cultivation of critical racial literacies and the enhancement of racial empathy as a way of authentically valuing diversity, many multiracial people may find themselves in need of strengthening their own abilities in these areas. Alternately, they may draw on potentially vast and expansive experiential knowledge that stems from life in the borderlands, a “facultad”12 further enhanced as they formed romantic relationships with people who possibly helped broaden or deepen their racial consciousness across other racial categories. If these times indicate anything, they forecast a fork in the road where multiracial people who are white-­adjacent or implicitly white continue to participate in “hidden mixture,” while multiracials who appear to be members of the “collective black” category will continue to enjoy far fewer racial privileges. Where romantic partnerships protect these privileges, one can often find whiteness at the center. Where romantic partnerships propel multiracial people into intensified hardship, the combined collective blackness of their couplehood (or family) likely compounding the anti-­black racial animosity, hostility, and discrimination that they face.13 If the “bridge builders” are unwilling or unable to do so—­or simply choosing to blend racial borders, what’s next? Where do we go from here?

Acknowledgments

This book began as an inkling of an idea that first guided me to anything and everything I could read about multiracial people, and then to a PhD program where I could conduct research on the lives of racially mixed individuals. In the process of having interview conversations with sixty people of various racial combinations, I learned a tremendous amount about race and romance among members of the national population who have racially mixed parentage and/or heritage. The stories that are woven together in these pages speak to the nuances in multiracial lives and the experiential similarities and differences of people with racially mixed ancestry and heritage in this society. The interview conversations served as an invitation into the lives of people navigating race and (sometimes discovering) racial borders in their public and private lives, across time and space, and in various historical moments. While some of the multiracial people I interviewed grew up in a post–­civil rights era in which choosing “multiracial” as a preferred racial identity did not seem like a viable option, others in my study actively embraced the term, finding it difficult to imagine claiming any other label to describe their racially mixed selves. In the process of conducting this qualitative research, I unintentionally cultivated a sense of community, created from being in conversation with many individuals in shared social networks. I enjoyed these conversations mostly because they felt so out of reach in my younger years, with me rather ill equipped to handle them with much grace or finesse. Immersing myself in hours-­long conversations with relative strangers was both scary and exciting to me and, I would imagine, to many of my research participants as well. For that, I am grateful to them for their courage, bravery, and willingness to practice vulnerability with me. I am indebted to them for sharing the intimate details of their public selves, as well as their private lives (specifically their family heritage and relationship histories). Without their openness and honesty, this book would 219

220 | Acknowledgments

not have been possible. I am thankful for the investment of time and energy that each of them made, and I hope I have captured their identities and experiences as they were conveyed to me. This book would also not be possible without the generous support and guidance of a number of trusted mentors and friends, too many to name here. I want to thank the faculty, staff, and students at Castleton University, especially those in my home program, Women’s and Gender Studies in the Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice. Being awarded faculty professional development funding and being granted a sabbatical from my institution enabled me to complete this manuscript in a more relaxed fashion. I appreciate the gift that time afforded me to luxuriate in my ideas, meditate on them, and craft them in ways that I hope readers find equally enjoyable, interesting, and important. In addition to writing and rewriting much of this manuscript during my sabbatical leave, I did so in different locations, including one of my favorite bookstores, Midtown Scholar. The space nurtured new ways of thinking and reimagining various aspects of my book. The iced coffee fueled this process deliciously. I polished and finalized this manuscript during my year as Visiting Instructor in the Women’s and Gender Studies Department at the University of South Florida. This experience situated me in a supportive community of colleague scholars, practitioners, and students. A return to the Southeast offered a reminder of the significance of changing landscapes and shifts in people’s everyday experiences with race, given the specificities of the geographies of race. This project really took flight with the abundance of support from many people. Thanks to my wonderfully supportive editor at NYU Press, Ilene Kalish. My writing and thinking also benefit tremendously from the generosity of Oriana Gatta, my friend and colleague. Her love of language inspires, and her gentle way with feedback improved this text tremendously. In various visualizations and textual translations throughout the book, her creative genius is present. Many thanks to everyone who shared enthusiasm for this project and helped me set these ideas free. This includes the supportive community of sister scholars who have nourished my soul, excited my mind with fresh ideas, and offered important insights. I offer a special thank-­you to my family. For the duration of this project, my family, particularly

Acknowledgments | 221

my parents, Carolyn and Mel; my sister, Maria; and my nephew, Evan, continuously cheered me on. I am deeply grateful for the unwavering encouragement and loving care of my partner, Omar. His smile, laughter, and humor—­not to mention some seriously impeccable comedic timing—­brighten the world, especially mine.

Appendix Researcher Reflexivity

As a woman with racially mixed parentage and heritage, and as a multiracial-­identified feminist researcher, my interest in multiracial people and “the multiracial experience”1 is both personal and professional. In synthesizing the two, I have been able to explore questions that I have as a sociologist searching for answers about and insight into other people’s experiences. I have also been able to better understand my individual experiences, not as unique or idiosyncratic but rather as reflective of broader patterns of experiences that people with racially mixed backgrounds (and racially ambiguous appearances) have. My research has provided me with greater insight on the preferred racial identities of, and the patterns of partner choices among, multiracial people. This insight furthered my understanding of the iterative relationship between racial identity and intimate romantic partners, or how multiracial identity informs the process of forming and maintaining intimate romantic relationships. Being able to investigate what I learned to see as “invisible mixture” on various levels (individual, relational, familial, and national) enabled me to think about mixture differently; I learned new ways of seeing multiracial people so often hiding in plain sight in the national population. Conducting research in an urban area in the Southeast furthered my understanding of the geographies of race, including the malleability of mixture read differently contingent on place and space. Through this work, I attempt to make important theoretical contributions to the field. The Research Process

To answer the set of questions I had at the time, questions about multiracial identity and multiracial people in interracial relationships, I embarked on a qualitative study in which I conducted in-­depth, 223

224 | Appendix

face-­to-­face qualitative interview conversations2 with sixty multiracial individuals. In these interview conversations, I explored a variety of questions, seeking to understand the dis/continuities in people’s multiracial experiences. The qualitative interviews, which lasted on average about one to two hours, provided rich insight into the lives of multiracial people. To participate in the study, respondents had to provide consent, indicating their willingness to do so and to discuss their racial identity, family heritage and background, and personal dating history or romantic career. Participants could always opt out of answering questions that they felt uncomfortable answering. They were given an interview guide so that they did not have to anticipate any of the questions. Instead, they could co-­create the interview conversation from a place of agency and empowerment. Research Sample

From the vantage point of living in an urban area—­by definition, densely populated and often demographically diverse—­I drew my sample of sixty respondents primarily from individuals at a research university in the southeastern United States. Relying on snowball sampling helped me identify additional respondents who were family members, friends, or close acquaintances of some of the student respondents. Participants ranged in age from eighteen to fifty-­seven years old. To qualify for participation in the study, individuals had to meet the screening criteria, which included having racially mixed parentage or heritage. In addition, individuals had to have reported experience in a romantic relationship lasting at least six months. Once those criteria were met, participants and I decided on mutually convenient times at which to meet for the interviews. Over the course of interviewing, I learned how people of various racial combinations discover different racial borders and manage them in their everyday lives. Respondents shared what they know about their family heritage, their parentage, and their preferred racial identity. They also discussed how having racially mixed parentage or heritage shapes their various ways of seeing, knowing, and living race. The sample that I drew felt robust in its racial diversity.3 I interviewed sixteen participants with black–­white parentage; thirteen with white

Appendix | 225

and Asian parentage; five with black, white, and Native American heritage; five with black and Native American heritage; four with black and Latinx parentage; three with black and Asian parentage; three with white and Latinx parentage; and two with black and Hawaiian parentage; two with white and Native American heritage; two with white, black, Native American, and Latinx heritage; one with white, black, and Latinx heritage; one with white, black, Asian, and Native American heritage; one with white and Other heritage; one with black and Other heritage; and one with white, Asian, black, Native American and Latinx heritage. In talking to respondents who were of these various racial combinations, I was able to explore the space between racial groups socially constructed as different; I could also consider if/when that space ever collapses or collides to create new social experiences and meanings for racially mixed people in intimate romantic relationships. Interviewing individuals of various backgrounds highlighted how their collective experiences converge and diverge within the sample and with current understandings of multiracial people in society. In terms of gender, my sample proved much less diverse. Of the sixty respondents, fifty-­two identified as women, and eight identified as men. While this asymmetry is not inherently problematic, it did limit my access to information about more multiracial men’s experiences. In hindsight, I partially attribute this asymmetry to my academic interest in both women’s studies and sociology. In particular, the former encouraged me to make space for women’s lives and voices. In doing so, and even in my association with women’s studies, potential and/or actual respondents may have seen me specifically as a feminist researcher. This view, for some potential participants, might have dissuaded them from participation, especially amid any aversion to feminism stemming from the many misconceptions about feminism that exists. At the time, I did not fully consider the role this public perception would play in shaping who might be willing to participate (or not) in a study I was conducting. Much of my early introduction to multiracial identity and personal narratives about the multiracial experience reflected women’s stories. From the books professors introduced to me, to the ones I found while browsing various bookstores, I noticed that women with racially mixed heritage or parentage were often embracing a multiracial identity and

226 | Appendix

narrating their lived experiences. Additionally, conferences that centered women’s experiences may have played a more powerful role in shaping my sample than I was initially aware of during my study. Existing scholarship indicates that men with racially mixed heritage are less likely to publicly claim multiracial identities: “Gender . . . is the single best predictor of identification, with biracial women markedly more likely than biracial men to identify as multiracial.”4 The latter are “more inclined to identify as Asian, Latino, or black because they are more likely to be culturally perceived as ‘men of color,’ whereas biracial women may be viewed as exotic ethnic ‘others’ and internalize this perception of difference.”5 In this way, gender and race intersect to inform who sees themselves as multiracial, claims that identity, and considers the benefits of participating in an interview. Curious about the geographies of race, I wanted to further my understanding of any regional effects on preferred racial identities of racially mixed people living in the South.6 The rule of hypodescent, or the one-­drop rule, continues to inform people’s ways of seeing race. This rule continues to informally operate, such that multiracial people with known black ancestry, often have their racial multiplicity collapsed into categorical blackness. That is, multiracial black people are understood as “just black.”7 Maps of the United States indicate that large concentrations of multiracial people tend to live in particular parts of the country, of which the highest percentages are evident in Hawai‘i, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, southern parts of Arizona, and South Florida.8 These maps reveal the kinds of clustering that take place, in part, as multiracial people move to parts of the United States with robust and racially diverse populations. Similarly, interracial couples with the resources to do so may gravitate to places known for accommodating, if not celebrating, racial diversity in families. In these ways, region impacts race and racial identity. Among black–­white biracials, those who live in the Midwest are “significantly less likely to identify as white and more likely to identify as multiracial,” compared to those who live in the South; having more black neighbors “decreases the likelihood that black-­white biracials will identify as white.”9 These neighborhood effects illustrate the social influences of race on racial identity.

Appendix | 227

Asian-­white and Latino-­white biracials who reside in the Pacific West or the Northeast are more likely to choose a multiracial label, whereas those living in the Midwest are more likely to adopt a white or multiracial identification [relative to those in the South]. In addition, as the proportion of the same minority race in the neighborhood increases, Latino-­white and black-­white biracials are less likely to identify as white, indicating that living around more people of one’s minority heritage fosters greater solidarity with that group. Yet increased contact with that group with one’s minority group does not necessarily translate to a singular identification with that group, as evidenced by the fact that Asian-­white and Latino-­ minority biracials living in minority neighborhoods are more inclined to select a multiracial label over a singular minority one.10

Regional and neighborhood effect reflects the broader social environment, along with family socialization and friendship networks, that shapes and influences individuals’ identity choices. Research Questions

During the interview conversation with respondents, I was able to investigate how racial identity shapes partner choices and experiences within, and independent of, respondents’ romantic careers. I gained insight into my sample in terms of (1) how racially mixed people’s racial identity choice(s) connect to or inform their romantic partner choice(s) and (2) how their appearance and others’ perception of them informs who might be attracted to and sincerely interested in a romantic relationship with them. This study revealed patterns across the racial identity preferences and partner choices among multiracial people in my sample. Other questions I considered throughout my interview conversation had to do with how multiracial people of different racial combinations experience their everyday lives, depending on their particular racial mixture; how their appearance, including skin color, shapes their racial location in the racialized hierarchy of desire;11 how any incongruity between multiracial people’s appearance, their preferred racial identity, and others’ perception of them impact their experiences; and how multiracial people negotiate interracial intimacy publicly and privately.12 I wondered if they experience(d) support, opposition, or supportive opposition to their romantic partner choices and in their romantic

228 | Appendix

relationships and/or if they felt validated and affirmed in their preferred racial identity assertions. When they felt invalidated or misunderstood, how did they make sense of and respond to such experiences, individually and relationally? As I conducted my research, I compared my interview conversations to the literature, looking for places where the stories shared with me by respondents aligned with the extant research that I voraciously read. Using that literature as a framework, I could search for and see convergences and divergences, as they surfaced in my sample. What I heard throughout the interview process highlighted some important departures from stories previously told. This book captures these nuances and offers up new ways of seeing multiracial people in intimate romantic relationships. Analyzing Data

Once I had produced verbatim transcriptions of the audio recordings of my interviews, I microscopically examined my data using the grounded theory method.13 Doing so facilitated my discovery of answers to the questions that guided my inquiry. In the process, I discovered that my respondents generally replicated the then emergent, now arguably more crystalized, racial hierarchy in which they are implicated; this hierarchy consists of three broad categories: whites, honorary whites, and collective blacks.14 In terms of their identity and intimate romantic partners, I wondered if multiracial people chose preferred racial identities that further blurred racial lines or brightened them instead.15 The collective impact of their choices might result in their decisions upholding current structures of race. Alternately, they might work to undermine and unravel persistent patterns to create something new. Some participants blended color lines on individual and relational levels by making claims to a singular race (i.e., white) as opposed to claiming their two or more races (i.e., white and Asian). They also blended color lines through their partner choice. By partnering with someone with approximate skin color and/or physical appearance, many multiracial people minimize the opposition that they might otherwise face in more visibly different couplings. Others “brightened” color

Appendix | 229

lines16 by choosing an intimate romantic partner outside of the racial groups in their own family’s racial background. Those individuals with lighter skin color tended to claim singular white identities and/or multiracial ones (except for respondents with known black ancestry), while those individuals with darker skin tended to claim blackness. These patterns partially reflect the process of “internalized identities,” whereby multiracial people internalize the perceptions of others (in relation to their preferred racial identities). More “clearly mixed” participants, or ones with racially ambiguous appearances, tend to enjoy “honorary white” status; this honorary whiteness complicates their liminal position on the color line.17 I discovered that many multiracial people make a number of moves to maintain (or increase their access to) racial privilege. They also have a sense of where they fall within the contemporary racial hierarchy and how malleable or moveable those racial locations might be within the social landscape. Some respondents rehearsed the rhetoric of colorblindness quite effectively, making claims to a lack of any or much awareness of racial privilege while accessing it (sometimes abundantly). Methodological Challenges

Throughout this project, I wrestled with questions of who counts as multiracial and what counts as an interracial relationship. At times, I found it tricky to articulate the ampersand—­that “both/and,” “either/ or” logic—­that so often applies to multiracial people. Articulating the ampersand involves capturing multiple truths, including how the same person can be two or more races and claim a singular race or perhaps all of the above, even none of the above, depending on time, space, and place; often, even the person asking questions about racial identity shapes the outcomes.18 In the research setting, the same person might consider their romantic relationship interracial in one moment and, in another, then see the same relationship as a racially homogeneous one. The landscape of racial multiplicity is vibrant yet fluid. It is this multiplicity and fluidity that make the research process so dynamic, so engaging, and still sometimes challenging. The space between racial categories remains contested terrain.

230 | Appendix

As a researcher, trying to capture in print the shape-­shifting experiences of my respondents proved an important but arduous task. Conducting a qualitative study of multiracial people certainly provided great insight into just how malleable and mellifluous racial identity can be. Inviting individuals of various backgrounds to share information about their racial identities and romantic relationships provided insight into how multiracial people navigate color lines and the complexities of race. Additionally, many interpretations of my data exist. While I read patterns in people’s romantic careers with my sociological imagination and against the grain, other researchers might draw different conclusions. My research highlights future areas of inquiry for scholars studying intimate romantic relationships. For instance, how might we better assess the gap between attitudes and actions, when it comes to interracial intimacy? What other interpretations are possible in the presence of what appears to be racialized preferences and a regulation of race and romance? An invitation exists for researchers to further wrestle with the patterns in human social behavior regarding romantic relationships. Understanding the role previous (positive, negative, neutral) experiences play in shaping racial attitudes about romantic relationships can provide even greater insight into what facilitates and/or impedes people’s actual participation within them. Figuring out effective ways to explore people’s racialized preferences within their romantic careers, to serve as consciousness-­raising interventions, might prove helpful in heightening their awareness of their own participation in these processes.

Notes

Preface

1 Matthew Pratt Guterl, Seeing Race in Modern America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2013). 2 Carol Hanisch, “The Personal Is Political: The Women’s Liberation Movement Classic with a New Explanatory Introduction,” January 2006, accessed June 1, 2020, http://www.carolhanisch.org/. 3 G. Reginald Daniel, More Than Black? Multiracial Identity and the New Racial Order (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002). 4 Marcia Alesan Dawkins, Clearly Invisible: Racial Passing and the Color of Cultural Identity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012). 5 F. James Davis, Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991). 6 Ta-­Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me (New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2015). 7 France Winndance Twine and Amy Steinbulger, “The Gap between Whites and Whiteness: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy,” DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race 3, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 341–­63. 8 Gina Miranda Samuels also discusses this dynamic in her work, “‘Being Raised by White People’: Navigating Racial Difference among Adopted Multiracial Adults,” Journal of Marriage and Family 71, no. 1 (2009): 80–­94. 9 Margaret L. Hunter, Race, Gender, and the Politics of Skin Tone (New York: Routledge, 2005). 10 Robert Moore III, They Always Said I Would Marry a White Girl: Coming to Grips with Race in America (New York: Hamilton Books, 2007), 40. 11 Moore, They Always Said, 84. 12 Eduardo Bonilla Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-­Blind Racism and the Perspectives of Racial Inequality in the United States, 5th ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017). 13 Mica Pollock, Colormute: Race Talk Dilemmas in an American School (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005). 14 Junot Diaz, “How to Date a Brown Girl (Black Girl, White Girl, or Halfie),” The New Yorker, December 25, 1995. 15 David R. Harris and Jeremiah Joseph Sim, “Who Is Multiracial? Assessing the Complexity of Lived Race,” American Sociological Review 67, no. 4 (August 2002): 614–­27. 231

232 | Notes

16 Brenda Gambol, “Changing Racial Boundaries and Mixed Unions: The Case of Second-­Generation Filipino Americans,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 14 (2016): 2621–­40. 17 This is a nod to Kumiko Nemoto’s book Racing Romance: Love, Power, and Desire Among Asian American/White Couples (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2009).

Introduction

1 Miri Song, “What Constitutes Intermarriage for Multiracial People in Britain?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 662, no. 1 (November 2015): 95. 2 Kim Parker, Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Rich Morin, and Mark Hugo Lopez, “Multiracial in America: Proud, Diverse and Growing in Numbers.” Pew ­Research Center, June 11, 2015, accessed November 14, 2019, https://www.pew​ socialtrends.org/. 3 Song, “What Constitutes Intermarriage?” 4 Chinyere K. Osuji, Boundaries of Love: Interracial Marriage and the Meaning of Race (New York: New York University, 2019). 5 See Celeste Vaughan Curington, Ken-­Hou Lin, and Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, “Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating,” American Sociological Review 80, no. 4 (August 2015): 764–­88. 6 A nod here to Ann Morning, “Who Is Multiracial? Definitions and Decisions,” Sociological Imagination 37, no. 4 (2000): 209–­29. 7 Sandra Smith and Mignon Moore, “Intraracial Diversity and Relations among African-­Americans,” American Journal of Sociology 106, no. 1 (2000): 1–­39; Margaret Shih and Diana Sanchez, “Perspectives and Research on the Positive and Negative Implications of Having Multiple Racial Identities,” Psychological Bulletin 131, no. 4 (2005): 569–­91. 8 Allison R. McGrath, Glenn T. Tsunokai, Melinda Schultz, Jillian Kavanagh, and Jake A. Tarrence, “Differing Shades of Colour: Online Dating Preferences of Biracial Individuals,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 11 (2016): 1936. 9 McGrath et al., “Differing Shades of Colour,” 18. 10 Melinda Mills, The Borders of Race: Patrolling “Multiracial” Identities (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2017). 11 Mills, The Borders of Race. 12 Kimberly McClain DaCosta, Making Multiracials: State, Family, and Market in the Redrawing of the Color Line (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 89. 13 Frank Newport, “In U.S., 87% Approve of Black–­White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958,” July 25, 2013, accessed November 30, 2020, http://www.gallup.com/; see also Kimberly McClain DaCosta, Making Multiracials; Renee Romano, Race Mixing: Black–­White Marriage in Postwar America (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2006). 14 DaCosta, Making Multiracials, 2007.

Notes | 233

15 Renee Romano presents slightly different numbers in her book Race Mixing: “In 1997, 61 percent of whites claimed to approve of black-­white marriages. Among blacks, too, approval for black-­white marriages has increased. When blacks were first polled on the subject in 1972, 58 percent responded favorably. By 1997, 77 percent approved” (2). 16 Newport, “In U.S., 87% Approve of Black–­White Marriage.” 17 Gretchen Livingston and Anna Brown, “Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia: One-­in-­Six Newlyweds are Married to Someone of a Different Race or Ethnicity,” Pew Research Center, May 18, 2017, accessed May 25, 2017, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/. 18 Erica Chito Childs, Navigating Interracial Borders: Black–­White Couples and Their Social Worlds (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005). 19 Yanyi K. Djamba and Sitawa R. Kimuna, “Are Americans Really in Favor of Interracial Marriage? A Closer Look at When They Are Asked about Black–­White Marriage for Their Relatives,” Journal of Black Studies 45, no. 6 (September 2014): 528–­44. 20 Maria Krysan and Sarah Moberg, “Trends in Racial Attitudes,” University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs, August 25, 2016, http://igpa​ .uillinois.edu/. 21 Livingston and Brown, “Intermarriage in the U.S.” 22 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books, 1977). 23 DaCosta, Making Multiracials, 88. 24 Hélène Charlery, “Interracial Romance as a Staged Spectacle in ‘Made in America, Bringing Down the House,’ and ‘Guess Who,’” South Atlantic Review 76, no. 4 (Fall 2011): 85–­100. 25 Julia Jordan-­Zachery, Shadow Bodies: Black Women, Ideology, Representation, and Politics (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2017). 26 Osuji, Boundaries of Love. 27 Angela Y. Davis, Women, Race, and Class (New York: Vintage, 1981); Claudia Rankine, Citizen: An American Lyric (New York: Greywolf Press, 2014). 28 DaCosta, Making Multiracials, 89. 29 Amy C. Steinbugler, Beyond Loving: Intimate Racework in Lesbian, Gay, and Straight Interracial Relationships (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). 30 Mills, The Borders of Race. 31 NiCole T. Buchanan and Cathy A. Acevedo, “When Face and Soul Collide: Therapeutic Concerns with Racially Ambiguous and Nonvisible Minority Women,” in Biracial Women in Therapy: Between A Rock and the Hard Place of Race, ed. Angela R. Gillem and Cathy A. Thompson (New York: The Haworth Press, 2004), 119–­32. 32 Mills, The Borders of Race. 33 Marcia Alesan Dawkins, Clearly Invisible: Racial Passing and the Color of Cultural Identity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012).

234 | Notes

34 Marisa G. Franco and Karen M. O’Brien, “Racial Identity Invalidation with Multiracial Individuals: An Instrument Development Study,” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 24, no. 1 (2018): 112–­25. 35 Elizabeth Hordge-­Freeman, The Color of Love: Racial Features, Stigma, and Socialization in Black Brazilian Families (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2015). 36 G. Reginald Daniel, More Than Black? Multiracial Identity and the New Racial Order (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002). 37 Buchanan and Acevedo, “When Face and Soul Collide.” 38 Kerry Ann Rockquemore, David L. Brunsma, and Daniel Delgado, “Racing to Theory or Re-­Theorizing Race? Understanding the Struggle to Build a Multiracial Identity Theory,” Journal of Social Issues 65, no. 1 (2009): 13–­34. 39 Mills, The Borders of Race. 40 David L. Brunsma, Daniel Delgado, and Kerry Ann Rockquemore, “Liminality in the Multiracial Experience: Towards a Concept of Identity Matrix,” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 20, no. 5 (2013): 481–­502. 41 Heather M. Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line: Black–­White Multiracial Families in a Racially Divided World (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000). 42 Rachel Moran, Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001). 43 Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line. 44 Moran, Interracial Intimacy, 42. 45 Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line, 40–­42. 46 Mills, The Borders of Race. 47 Mat Johnson, Loving Day (New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2015). 48 Peggy McIntosh, “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies” (Working Paper 189, Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, Wellesley, MA, 1998). 49 Ruha Benjamin, Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code (Medford, MA: Polity, 2019). 50 Caroline A. Streeter, “The Hazards of Visibility: ‘Biracial’ Women, Media Images, and Narratives of Identity,” in New Faces in a Changing America: Multiracial identity in the 21st century, ed. Loretta I. Winters and Herman L. DeBose (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003), 301–­22. 51 Danzy Senna, You Are Free (New York: Riverhead Books, 2011). 52 Senna, You Are Free, 179–­80. 53 Matthew Pratt Guterl, Seeing Race in Modern America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2013). 54 Livingston and Brown, “Intermarriage in the U.S.” 55 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and Tracey Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children (New York: AltaMira Press, 2005), 5. 56 Jessie Turner, “Retheorizing the Relationship between New Mestizaje and New Multiraciality as Mixed Race Identity Models,” Journal of Critical Mixed Race Studies 1, no. 1 (2014): 133–­48.

Notes | 235

57 Brittany Cooper, “Black Girl Is a Verb: A New American Grammar Book,” Crunk Feminist Collective, March 28, 2016, accessed April 2, 2016, http://www.crunkfemi​ nistcollective.com/. 58 France Winddance Twine, A White Side of Black Britain: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011). 59 France Winddance Twine and Amy Steinbugler, “The Gap between Whites and Whiteness: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy,” DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race 3, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 341–­63. 60 France Winddance Twine, “Racial Literacy in Britain: Antiracist Projects, Black Children, and White Parents,” A Journal of the African Diaspora 1, no. 2 (2003): 129–­53. 61 Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line, 43. 62 Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line, 44. 63 Tomas Almaguer, Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). 64 Childs, Navigating Interracial Borders. 65 Twine and Steinbugler, “The Gap between Whites and Whiteness”; Ijeoma Oluo, So You Want to Talk about Race (Boston: Seal Press, 2018); Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-­Blind Racism and the Perspectives of Racial Inequality in the United States, 5th ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017). 66 DaCosta, Making Multiracials. 67 Senna, You Are Free. 68 Johnson, Loving Day. 69 Salvador Vidal-­Ortiz, “On Being a White Person of Color: Using Autoethnography to Understand Puerto Ricans’ Racialization,” Qualitative Sociology 27, no. 2 (2004): 179–­203. 70 Johnson, Loving Day. 71 Janell Hobson, Body as Evidence: Mediating Race, Globalizing Gender (New York: SUNY Press, 2012). 72 Anna Holmes, “Black with (Some) White Privilege.” The New York Times, February 11, 2018. 73 Holmes, “Black with (Some) White Privilege.” 74 Jürgen Kornmeier and Michael Bach, “Ambiguous Figures—­What Happens in the Brain When Perception Changes but Not the Stimulus,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6 (2012): Article 51, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00051. 75 Dawkins, Clearly Invisible. 76 Johnson, Loving Day. 77 Michele Martin, “Racism Is Literally Bad for Your Health,” NPR interview with David Williams, October 28, 2017, https://www.npr.org/; Aleichia Williams, “I’m Not Pretty for a Black Girl. I’m Just Pretty,” Huffington Post, September 13, 2016, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/; David R. Williams and Valerie Purdie-­ Vaughns, “Needed Interventions to Reduce Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 41, no. 4 (2016): 627–­51.

236 | Notes

78 Margaret L. Hunter, Race, Gender, and the Politics of Skin Tone (New York: Routledge, 2005); Elizabeth Hordge-­Freeman, The Color of Love: Racial Features, Stigma, and Socialization in Black Brazilian Families (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2015). 79 Averil Y. Clarke, Inequalities of Love: College-­Educated Black Women and the Barriers to Romance and Family (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011). 80 Guterl, Seeing Race in Modern America, 165. 81 Guterl, Seeing Race in Modern America, 106. 82 Guterl, Seeing Race in Modern America, 165. 83 Guterl, Seeing Race in Modern America, 165. 84 AnaLouise Keating and Gloria Gonzales-­Lopez, Bridging: How Gloria Anzaldua’s Life and Work Transformed Our Own (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2012). 85 Maria P. P. Root, Love’s Revolution: Interracial Marriage (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001). 86 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists. 87 Dawkins, Clearly Invisible. 88 Mills, The Borders of Race. 89 Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, 2nd ed. (first published 1987; San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1999). 90 Chela Sandoval, Methodology of the Oppressed: Theory Out of Bounds (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000). 91 These categories include White, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native (or Native American), Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race. Although the category Hispanic/Latino/a can include individuals of any race, it is also a racialized category. 92 Jamie M. Doyle and Grace Kao, “Are Racial Identities of Multiracials Stable: Changing Racial Self-­Identification among Single and Multiple Race Individuals,” Social Psychology Quarterly 70, no. 4 (2007): 405–­23. 93 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and David L. Brunsma, Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007). 94 Rockquemore and Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children. 95 Ta-­Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me (New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2015). 96 Stephanie E. Afful, Corinne Wohlford, and Suzanne M. Stoelting, “Beyond ‘Difference’: Examining the Process and Flexibility of Racial Identity in Interracial Marriages,” special issue, Journal of Social Issues: A Journal of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues 71, no. 4 (2015): 659–­74. 97 Mills, The Borders of Race. 98 Moran, Interracial Intimacy, 185. 99 Moran, Interracial Intimacy, 190.

1. Making Multiracials Visible

1 Kimberly McClain DaCosta, Making Multiracials: State, Family, and Market in the Redrawing of the Color Line (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007).

Notes | 237

2 Llewellyn M. Smith, Tracy Heather Strain, and Christine Herbes-­Sommers, dirs., Race: The Power of an Illusion, 3 episodes, aired April 24, 2003, on PBS (San Francisco: California Newsreel, 2003). 3 Heather M. Dalmage, ed., The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004); Heather M. Dalmage, “Protecting Racial Comfort, Protecting White Privilege,” in The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, ed. Heather Dalmage (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 203–­18. 4 Rainier Spencer, Reproducing Race: The Paradox of Generation Mix (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010); Rainier Spencer, Challenging Multiracial Identity (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006); Rainier Spencer, “Beyond Pathology and Cheerleading: Insurgency, Dissolution, and Complicity in the Multiracial Idea,” in The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, ed. Heather Dalmage (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 101–­24. 5 Jenifer L. Bratter and Heather A. O’Connell, “Multiracial Identities, Single Race History: Contemporary Consequences of Historical Race and Marriage Laws for Racial Classification,” Social Science Research 68 (November 2017): 102–­16; Karen Alonso, Loving v. Virginia: Interracial Marriage, Landmark Supreme Court Cases Series (Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 2000). 6 Sheryll Cashin, Loving: Interracial Intimacy in America and the Threat to White Supremacy (Boston: Beacon Press, 2017). 7 See Danielle McGuire, At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape, and Resistance—­A New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the Rise of Black Power (New York: Vintage, 2011) for an historical account of this surveillance; see Simone Browne, Dark matters: ON the Surveillance of Blackness (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015), and Angela J. Hattery and Earl Smith, eds., Policing Black Bodies: How Black Lives Are Surveilled and How to Work for Change (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017), for a more contemporary discussion. 8 Jeff Nichols, dir., Loving (New York: Focus Features, 2016). 9 Yesha Callahan, “Mildred Loving’s Grandson Says She Wasn’t Black,” The Grapevine, November 4, 2016, accessed October 18, 2017, https://thegrapevine.theroot​ .com/. 10 Melinda Mills, The Borders of Race: Patrolling “Multiracial” Identities (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2017). 11 Anzaldúa, Borderlands/La Frontera. 12 Tomas Almaguer, Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). 13 Callahan, “Mildred Loving’s Grandson.” 14 Callahan, “Mildred Loving’s Grandson.” 15 Callahan, “Mildred Loving’s Grandson.” 16 Arica L. Coleman, “The White and Black Worlds of Loving v. Virginia,” Time Magazine, November 14, 2016, http://time.com/.

238 | Notes

17 Coleman, “The White and Black Worlds”; see also Arica L. Coleman, That the Blood Stay Pure: African Americans, Native Americans, and the Predicament of Race and Identity in Virginia, Blacks in the Diaspora (Bloomington: Indiana ­University Press, 2013). 18 Jack A. Forbes, Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-­Black Peoples (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1993). 19 Nikki Khanna, “‘If You’re Half Black, You’re Just Black’: Reflected Appraisals and the Persistence of the One Drop Rule in the South,” The Sociological Quarterly 51, no. 1 (2010): 96–­121. 20 Maria P. P. Root, Love’s Revolution: Interracial Marriage (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001). 21 Maria P. P. Root, “Resolving ‘Other’ Status: Identity Development of Biracial Individuals,” in American Families: A Multicultural Reader, ed. Stephanie Coontz (New York: Routledge, 1999), 439–­54. 22 Jin Haritaworn, “Beautiful Beasts. Ambivalence and Distinction in the Gender Identity Negotiations of Multiracialised Women of Thai Descent,” Women’s Studies International Forum 30, no. 5 (2007): 391–­403. 23 Paul Spickard, Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-­ Century America (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989). 24 Angela Y. Davis, Women, Race, and Class (New York: Vintage, 1981); Patricia Hill Collins, Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism (New York, Routledge, 2005); Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd ed. (first published 1991; New York: Routledge, 2000); Tressie McMillan Cottom, Thick: And Other Essays (New York: The New Press, 2019). 25 Davis, Women, Race, and Class. 26 Danielle McGuire, At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape, and Resistance—­A New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the Rise of Black Power (New York: Vintage, 2011). 27 Coleman, “The White and Black Worlds.” 28 Heather M. Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line: Black–­White Multiracial Families in a Racially Divided World (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000). 29 A nod to G. Reginald Daniel, More Than Black? Multiracial Identity and the New Racial Order (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002). 30 bell hooks, All about Love: New Visions (New York: William Morrow, 2018). 31 Karen Alonso, Loving v. Virginia; Rachel Moran, Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001). 32 Janell Hobson, Body as Evidence: Mediating Race, Globalizing Gender (New York: SUNY Press, 2012); Spickard, Mixed Blood. 33 See US Census Bureau, National Archives, “Welcome to the 1940 Census Archives,” n.d., accessed September 30, 2020, https://1940census.archives.gov/. 34 Moran, Interracial Intimacy.

Notes | 239

35 George A. Yancey, Who Is White? Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003). 36 Cashin, Loving. 37 Chela Sandoval, “Dissident Globalizations, Emancipatory Methods, Social-­ Erotics,” in Queer Globalizations: Citizenship and the Afterlife of Colonialism, ed. Arnaldo Cruz-­Malave and Martin F. Manalansan IV (New York: New York University, 2002), 20–­32. 38 F. James Davis, Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991). 39 Spickard, Mixed Blood; Collins, Black Sexual Politics. 40 Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014). 41 See US Census 2000, 2010, and 2020 as recent examples. 42 James Tyner and Donna Houston, “Controlling Bodies: The Punishment of Multiracialized Sexual Relations,” Antipode 32, no. 4 (2000): 388. 43 Spickard Mixed Blood; Hobson, Body as Evidence. 44 Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism (Boston: Beacon Press, 2018). 45 Maurice Berger, White Lies: Race and the Myths of Whiteness (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000). 46 George Lipsitz, The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2018). 47 Melissa Harris-­Perry, Sister Citizen: Shame, Stereotypes, and Black Women in America (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011). 48 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Routledge, 2002). 49 Collins, Black Feminist Thought. 50 Ta-­Nehisi Coates, “The Good, Racist People,” The New York Times, March 8, 2013; Melissa Harris-­Perry, Sister Citizen. 2011. 51 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-­Blind Racism and the Perspectives of Racial Inequality in the United States, 5th ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017). See also Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, “From Biracial to Tri-­racial: The Emergence of a New Racial Stratification System in the United States,” in Skin Deep: How Race and Complexion Matter in the ‘Color-­Blind’ Era, ed. Cedric Herring, Verna Keith, and Hayward Derrick Horton (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 224–­39; Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, “‘New Racism,’ Color-­Blind Racism, and the Future of Whiteness in America,” in White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, ed. Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva (New York: Routledge, 2003), 271–­84. 52 Notably, the decline in white husband/black wife unions occurred concurrently with convergent social movements. At the intersections of these feminist and social justice efforts (in the form of the second wave of the feminist movement and the civil rights movement), an awakening awareness of the importance of equality

240 | Notes

may have also created or exacerbated tensions between and across these racial and gender groups. 53 Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line. 54 Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line, 70. 55 Brittany Rico, Rose M. Kreider, and Lydia Anderson, “Growth in Interracial and Interethnic Married-­Couple Households,” US Census Bureau, July 9, 2018, accessed October 30, 2018, https://www.census.gov/. 56 Jeffrey S. Passell, Wendy Wang, and Paul Taylor. “One-­in-­Seven New Marriages is Interracial or Interethnic: Marrying Out,” Pew Research Center, June 4, 2010, accessed May 4, 2019, https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/. 57 US Census Bureau, “2012–­2016 American Community Survey (ACS), 5-­Year Estimates,” n.d., www.census.gov/acs. 58 US Census Bureau, “2010 Census Shows Interracial and Interethnic Married Couples Grew by 28 percent Over Decade,” CB12–­68, April 25, 2012, accessed June 1, 2018, http://www.census.gov/. 59 US Census Bureau, “Table 1. Race of Wife by Race of Husband: 1960, 1970, 1980, 19991, and 1992,” June 10, 1998, accessed November 30, 2020, https://www2.census​ .gov; US Census Bureau, “Table 2. Race of Couples: 1990,” June 10, 1998, accessed November 30, 2020, https://www2.census.gov/. 60 US Census Bureau, “Table 1. Race of Wife by Race of Husband.” 61 2000 Census Summary File 1; 2010 Census Summary File 1; US Census Bureau, “2012–­2016 American Community Survey.” 62 Kristen Bialik, “Key Facts about Race and Marriage, 50 Years after Loving v. Virginia,” Pew Research Center, June 12, 2017, accessed August 4, 2018, https://www​ .pewresearch.org/. 63 Bialik, “Key Facts.” 64 Bialik, “Key Facts.” 65 See Shantel Gabrieal Buggs, “Does (Mixed-­)Race Matter? The Role of Race in Interracial Sex, Dating, and Marriage,” Sociology Compass 11 (2017): 1–­13. 66 CNN Wire Staff, “Number of Interracial Couples in U.S. Reaches All-­Time High,” April 25, 2012, https://www.cnn.com/. 67 Buggs, “Does (Mixed-­)Race Matter?,” 2. 68 Rebecca King-­O’Riain, Stephen Small, Minelle Mahtani, Miri Song, and Paul Spickard, eds., Global Mixed Race (New York: New York University Press, 2014). 69 Margaret L. Hunter, Race, Gender, and the Politics of Skin Tone (New York: Routledge, 2005); Elizabeth Hordge-­Freeman, The Color of Love: Racial Features, Stigma, and Socialization in Black Brazilian Families (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2015). 70 Erica Lorraine Williams, Sex Tourism in Bahia: Ambiguous Entanglements (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2013). 71 Williams, Sex Tourism in Bahia, 45. 72 Hordge-­Freeman, The Color of Love.

Notes | 241

73 Chong-­suk Han and Kyung-­Hee Choi, “Very Few People Say ‘No Whites’: Gay Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Desire,” Sociological Spectrum 38, no. 3 (2018): 145–­61. 74 Bialik, “Key Facts.” 75 Harris-­Perry, Sister Citizen. 76 Tyner and Houston, “Controlling Bodies.” 77 Tyner and Houston, “Controlling Bodies,” 388. 78 Tyner and Houston, “Controlling Bodies,” 388–­89. 79 See Martha Hodes, Sex, Love, Race: Crossing Boundaries in North American History (New York: New York University Press, 1999). 80 Davis, Who Is Black? 81 Perhaps the convergence of these two groups (in Census 2010) addresses some of my interest about the intersections where shifting and invisible mixture meet. More than five million people combined (3,972,309 “two or more races” and 1,486,103 “some other race” groups) reported marital status. 82 See US Census Bureau, “Households and Families: 2010 Census Briefs,” April 2012, https://www.census.gov/. 83 Kimberly Snyder Manganelli, Transatlantic Spectacles of Race: The Tragic Mulatta and the Tragic Muse (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2012). 84 David L. Brunsma, Daniel Delgado, and Kerry Ann Rockquemore, “Liminality in the Multiracial Experience: Towards a Concept of Identity Matrix,” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 20, no. 5 (2013): 481–­502; Rodney Coates, Abby L. Ferber, and David L. Brunsma, The Matrix of Race: Social Construction, Intersectionality, and Inequality (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2017). 85 Tanya Kateri Hernandez, “Multiracial Matrix: The Role of Race Ideology in the Enforcement of Anti-­discrimination Laws, a United States–­Latin America Comparison,” Cornell Law Review 87, no. 5 (2001–­2002): 1093–­1176. 86 Maria P. P. Root, ed., The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996). 87 Mills, The Borders of Race. 88 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and David L. Brunsma, Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007). 89 Suki Ali, Mixed-­Race, Post-­Race: Gender, New Ethnicities, And Cultural Practices (New York: Berg, 2003); Ann Morning, The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference (Oakland: University of California Press, 2011); see also Ann Morning, “Multiracial Classification on the United States Census: Myth, Reality, and Future Impact,” Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales 21, no. 2 (2005): 111–­34. 90 Mills, The Borders of Race. 91 Rockquemore and Brunsma, Beyond Black. 92 Rockquemore and Brunsma, Beyond Black. 93 Rockquemore and Brunsma, Beyond Black, 41.

242 | Notes

94 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and Tracey Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children (New York: AltaMira Press, 2005), 6. 95 Rockquemore and Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children, 6, 9. 96 Brunsma, Delgado, and Rockquemore. “Liminality in the Multiracial Experience”; Hernandez, “Multiracial Matrix”; Mills, The Borders of Race. 97 Rockquemore and Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children. 98 Rockquemore and Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children, 8. 99 See the appendix. 100 Ann Morning, “Kaleidoscope: Contested Identities and New Forms of Race Membership,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 41, no. 6 (2017): 1–­19. 101 Nikki Khanna, Biracial in America: Forming and Performing Racial Identity (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011). 102 Yancey, Who Is White? 103 José Muñoz, Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999). 104 Mills, The Borders of Race. 105 Brittany Rico, Rose M. Kreider, and Lydia Anderson, “Examining Change in the Percent of Married-­Couple Households That Are Interracial and Interethnic: 2000 to 2012–­2016” (working paper SEHSD-­WP2018–­11, US Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, April 2018). 106 See US Census, “Households and Families.” 107 DaCosta, The Borders of Race, 90; Jennifer Lee and Frank Bean, “America’s Changing Color Lines: Immigration, Race/Ethnicity, and Multiracial Identification,” Annual Review of Sociology 30 (2004): 221–­42. 108 Spickard, Mixed Blood. 109 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and Patricia Arend, “Opting for White: Choice, Fluidity and Racial Identity Construction in Post Civil-­Rights America.” Race and Society 5, no. 1 (2002): 49–­54. 110 Amy C. Steinbugler, “‘I’m Black and I’ll Always Be That Way’: Black Identities through the Lens of Interracial Intimacy,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38, no. 10 (2015): 1690–­706. 111 Amy C. Steinbugler, Beyond Loving: Intimate Racework in Lesbian, Gay, and Straight Interracial Relationships (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 151.

2. Contested Choices

1 Erica Chito Childs, Navigating Interracial Borders: Black–­White Couples and Their Social Worlds (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005); Heather Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line: Black–­White Multiracial Families in a Racially Divided World (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000). 2 France Winddance Twine, “Heterosexual Alliances: The Romantic Management of Racial Identity,” in The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier, ed. Maria P. P. Root (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), 291–­304; Ivory Roberts-­Clarke, Angie C. Roberts, and Patricia Morokoff, “Dating Practices,

Notes | 243

Racial Identity, and Psychotherapeutic Needs of Biracial Women,” in Biracial Women in Therapy: Between a Rock and the Hard Place of Race, ed. Angela R. Gillem and Cathy A. Thompson (New York: The Haworth Press, 2004), 103–­18. 3 Maureen Reddy, Crossing the Color Line: Race, Parenting, and Culture (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997). 4 Paul C. Rosenblatt, Terri A. Karis, and Richard D. Powell, Multiracial Couples: Black and White Voices (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995). 5 Childs, Navigating Interracial Borders. 6 Mills, The Borders of Race. 7 Rachel Moran, Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001). 8 Twine, “Heterosexual Alliances.” 9 France Winddance Twine, A White Side of Black Britain: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011). 10 Amy C. Steinbugler, “‘I’m Black and I’ll Always Be that Way’: Black Identities through the Lens of Interracial Intimacy,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38, no. 10 (2015): 1690–­706. 11 France Winddance Twine and Amy Steinbugler, “The Gap between Whites and Whiteness: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy,” DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race 3, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 341–­63. 12 Steinbugler, “I’m Black.” 13 Twine, “Heterosexual Alliances.” 14 Kerry Ann Rockquemore, “Forced to Pass and Other Sins against Authenticity,” Women and Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory 29, no. 15 (2005): 17–­31. 15 Brittany Rico, Rose M. Kreider, and Lydia Anderson, “Growth in Interracial and Interethnic Married-­Couple Households,” US Census Bureau, July 9, 2018, accessed October 30, 2018, https://www.census.gov/. 16 Kimberly DaCosta, “All in the Family: The Familial Roots of Racial Division,” in The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, ed. Heather Dalmage (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 1–­16. 17 Zhenchao Qian, “Who Intermarries? Education, Nativity, Region, and Interracial Marriage, 1980 and 1990,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 30, no. 4 (1999): 579–­97; Zhenchao Qian and Daniel T. Lichter, “Changing Patterns of Interracial Marriage in a Multiracial Society,” Journal of Marriage and Family 73, no. 5 (October 2011): 1065–­84. 18 Patricia Edmonds, “Black and White: These Twins Will Make You Rethink Race,” National Geographic’s The Race Issue, April 2018, accessed October 25, 2018, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/. 19 NiCole T. Buchanan and Cathy A. Acevedo, “When Face and Soul Collide: Therapeutic Concerns with Racially Ambiguous and Nonvisible Minority Women,” in Biracial Women in Therapy: Between a Rock and the Hard Place of Race, ed. Angela R. Gillem and Cathy A. Thompson (New York: The Haworth Press, 2004), 119–­32.

244 | Notes

20 Gloria Wade-­Gayles, Rooted against the Wind (New York: Beacon Press, 1997). 21 Kristin Pauker and Nalini Ambady, “Multiracial Faces: How Categorization ­Affects Memory at the Boundaries of Race,” Journal of Social Issues 65, no. 1 (2009): 69–­70. 22 Amy C. Steinbugler, Beyond Loving: Intimate Racework in Lesbian, Gay, and Straight Interracial Relationships (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Amy C. Steinbugler, “Visibility as Privilege and Danger: Heterosexual and Same-­Sex Interracial Intimacy in the 21st Century,” Sexualities 8, no. 4 (2005): 425–­43. 23 Fans of How Stella Got Her Groove Back, a movie adaptation of Terry McMillan’s book of same title directed by Kevin Rodney Sullivan (Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox, 1995), might think she is alluding to the scene between Stella and her considerably younger love interest, Winston. In art and life, regulators of race and romance see siblings instead of lovers. 24 Amy C. Steinbugler, “Hiding in Plain Sight: Why Queer Interraciality Is Unrecognizable to Strangers and Sociologists,” in Interracial Relationships in the 21st Century, ed. Angela J. Hattery and Earl Smith (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2009). 25 Caroline A. Streeter, “The Hazards of Visibility: ‘Biracial’ Women, Media Images, and Narratives of Identity,” in New Faces in a Changing America: Multiracial identity in the 21st Century, ed. Loretta I. Winters and Herman L. DeBose (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003), 301. 26 Anthony Christian Ocampo, The Latinos of Asia: How Filipino Americans Break the Rules of Race (Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016). 27 Khiara Bridges, Reproducing Race: An Ethnography of Pregnancy as a Site of Racialization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011). 28 Reddy, Crossing the Color Line. 29 Steinbugler, “Visibility as Privilege.” 30 Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line. 31 Edward Telles, Pigmentocracies: Ethnicity, Race, and Color in Latin America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2014). 32 Margaret Hunter, Race, Gender, and the Politics of Skin Tone (New York: Routledge, 2005). 33 Korie Edwards, Katrina Carter-­Tellison, and Cedric Herring, “For Richer, for Poorer, whether Dark or Light: Skin Tone, Marital Status, and Spouse’s Earnings,” in Skin Deep: How Race and Complexion Matter in the ‘Color-­Blind’ Era, ed. Cedric Herring, Verna Keith, and Hayward Derrick Horton (Chicago and Urbana: Institute for Research on Race and Public Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, and University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 2004), 65–­81. 34 Hunter, Race, Gender. 35 Reesma Menakem, My Grandmother’s Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies (Las Vegas: Central Recovery Press, 2017). 36 Elizabeth Hordge-­Freeman, The Color of Love: Racial Features, Stigma, and Socialization in Black Brazilian Families (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2015).

Notes | 245

37 Philomena Essed, Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1991). 38 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-­Blind Racism and the Perspectives of Racial Inequality in the United States, 5th ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017). 39 Mica Pollock, Colormute: Race Talk Dilemmas in an American School (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005). 40 Miri Song, Multiracial Parents: Mixed Families, Generational Change, and the Future of Race (New York: New York University Press, 2017). 41 Mireille Miller-­Young, A Taste for Brown Sugar: Black Women in Pornography (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014). 42 Song, Multiracial Parents. 43 Hunter, Race, Gender. 44 Joanne Rondilla and Paul Spickard. Is Lighter Better? Skin-­Tone Discrimination Among Asian Americans (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007). 45 Hunter, Race, Gender. 46 Carla K. Bradshaw, “Beauty and the Beast: On Racial Ambiguity,” in Racially Mixed People in America, ed. Maria P. P. Root (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1992), 77–­88. 47 Nikki Khanna, “‘If You’re Half Black, You’re Just Black’: Reflected Appraisals and the Persistence of the One Drop Rule in the South.” The Sociological Quarterly 51, no. 1 (2010): 96–­121. 48 France Winddance Twine examines the ways that families visually represent themselves in family photo albums and discursively construct their families as interracial ones through their storytelling. See “Racial Literacy in Britain: Antiracist Projects, Black Children, and White Parents,” A Journal of the African Diaspora 1, no. 2 (2003): 129–­53. 49 Naomi Zack, ed., Race/Sex: Their Sameness, Difference, and Interplay (New York: Routledge, 1997). 50 Renee Romano, Race Mixing: Black–­White Marriage in Postwar America (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2006). 51 Childs, Navigating Interracial Borders. 52 Jennifer L. Martin, Racial Battle Fatigue: Insights from the Front Lines of Social Justice Advocacy (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2015). 53 Kristen Myers, Racetalk: Racism Hiding in Plain Sight (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005). 54 Steinbugler, “Visibility as Privilege and Danger,” 432. 55 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and Tracey Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children (New York: AltaMira Press, 2005). 56 Judy Scales-­Trent, Notes of a White Black Woman: Race, Color, Community (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995).

246 | Notes

57 Brenda Gambol, “Changing Racial Boundaries and Mixed Unions: The Case of Second-­Generation Filipino Americans,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 14 (2016): 2621–­40. 58 A nod to Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line. 59 Arlie Hochschild, The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2012). 60 Howard Schuman, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo, and Maria Krysan, Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997). 61 Ann Morning, “Who Is Multiracial? Definitions and Decisions,” Sociological Imagination 37, no. 4 (2000): 209–­29. 62 Stephanie E. Afful, Corrine Wohlford, and Suzanne M. Stoelting, “Beyond ‘Difference’: Examining the Process and Flexibility of Racial Identity in Interracial Marriages,” special issue, Journal of Social Issues: A Journal of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 71, no. 4 (2015): 659–­74. 63 Phillip Brian Harper, “The Evidence of Felt Intuition: Minority Experience, ­Everyday Life, and Critical Speculative Knowledge,” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 6, no. 4 (2000): 641–­57. 64 Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1978). 65 John L. Jackson, Jr., Real Black: Adventures in Racial Sincerity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). 66 This point speaks to the limits of people’s theoretical interest in dating someone of a different race(s), especially if they are currently and contentedly in a relationship. 67 C. Winter Han, Geisha of a Different Kind: Race and Sexuality in Gaysian America (New York: New York University Press, 2015). 68 Sanaa Hamri, dir., Something New (New York: Focus Features, 2006). 69 Han, Chong-­suk and Kyung-­Hee Choi, “Very Few People Say ‘No Whites’: Gay Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Desire,” Sociological Spectrum 38, no. 3 (2018): 145–­61. 70 Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists. 71 Khanna, “‘If You’re Half Black.’” 72 This is a nod to Kerry Ann Rockquemore and David Brunsma, Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007). 73 Paul Spickard, Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-­Century America (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989). 74 Gretchen Livingston and Anna Brown, “Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia: One-­in-­Six Newlyweds are Married to Someone of a Different Race or Ethnicity,” Pew Research Center, May 18, 2017, accessed May 25, 2017, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/. 75 Kristen Bialik, “Key Facts About Race and Marriage, 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia. Pew Research Center, June 12, 2017, accessed August 4, 2018, https://www​ .pewresearch.org/.

Notes | 247

76 Livingston and Brown, “Intermarriage in the U.S.” 77 US Census Bureau, “2010 Census Shows Interracial and Interethnic Married Couples Grew by 28 Percent over Decade,” CB12–­68, April, 25, 2012, accessed June 1, 2018, http://www.census.gov/. 78 Childs, Navigating Interracial Borders. 79 Celeste Vaughan Curington, Ken-­Hou Lin, and Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, “Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating,” American Sociological Review 80, no. 4 (August 2015): 764–­88. 80 bell hooks, Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014). 81 Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America (New York: Bold Type Books, 2017). 82 Ashley Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, eds., White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism (New York: Routledge, 2003). 83 Mills, The Borders of Race. 84 Hayward Derrick Horton, “Racism, Whitespace, and the Rise of the Neo-­Mulattoes,” in Mixed Messages: Multiracial Identities in the “Color-­Blind” Era, ed. David L. Brunsma (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2006), 117–­24. 85 Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches (first published 1984; Berkeley, CA: The Crossing Press, 2007). 86 Myers, Racetalk. 87 Mari Matsuda, Where Is Your Body?: And Other Essays on Race, Gender and the Law (Boston: Beacon, 1993); Mari Matsuda, Words that Wounds: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993); Richard Delgado, “Words that Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name Calling,” in Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment, ed. J. M. Matsuda, C. R. Lawrence, R. Delgado, and K. Williams Crenshaw (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993), 89–­110. 88 Derald Wing Sue, Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010). 89 Judith Butler, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative (New York: Routledge, 1997). 90 Nazli Kibria, Becoming Asian American: Second-­Generation Chinese and Korean American Identities (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002); Nazli Kibria, Family Tightrope: The Changing Lives of Vietnamese Americans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. 91 Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line. 92 Steinbugler, Beyond Loving; Steinbugler, “Visibility as Privilege and Danger.” 93 Barbara Katz Rothman, Weaving a Family: Untangling Race and Adoption (Boston: Beacon Press, 2006). 94 Steinbugler, “Visibility as Privilege and Danger,” 425. 95 Steinbugler, “Visibility as Privilege and Danger,” 427–­28. 96 Steinbugler, “Visibility as Privilege and Danger.”

248 | Notes

97 Salvador Vidal-­Ortiz, “On Being a White Person of Color: Using Autoethnography to Understand Puerto Ricans’ Racialization,” Qualitative Sociology 27, no. 2 (2004): 179–­203.

3. Ironic Interactions

1 Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977). 2 Erica Chito Childs, Navigating Interracial Borders: Black–­White Couples and Their Social Worlds (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005). 3 Celeste Vaughan Curington, Ken-­Hou Lin, and Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, “Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating,” American Sociological Review 80, no. 4 (August 2015): 764–­88. 4 Charles A. Gallagher, “Racial Redistricting: Expanding the Boundaries of Whiteness,” in The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, ed. Heather Dalmage (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 59–­76. 5 Mills, The Borders of Race: Patrolling “Multiracial” Identities (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2017). 6 George Lipsitz, The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2018). 7 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva and Gianpaolo Baiocchi, “Anything but Racism: How Sociologists Limit the Significance of Racism,” Race and Society 4, no. 2 (2001): 117–­31. 8 Mica Pollock, Colormute: Race Talk Dilemmas in an American School (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005). 9 Kumiko Nemoto, Racing Romance: Love, Power, and Desire among Asian American/ White Couples (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2009). 10 Manju Kapur, Dutiful Daughters (New York: Penguin, 1998). 11 Nazli Kibria, Becoming Asian American: Second-­Generation Chinese and Korean American Identities (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). 12 Shantel Gabrieal Buggs, “Does (Mixed-­)Race Matter? The Role of Race in Interracial Sex, Dating, and Marriage,” Sociology Compass 11 (2017): 2. 13 Jenifer Bratter, “Will ‘Multiracial’ Survive to the Next Generation?: The Racial Classification of Children of Multiracial Parents,” Social Forces 86, no. 2 (December 2007): 821–­49. 14 Amy C. Steinbugler, “‘I’m Black and I’ll Always Be that Way’: Black Identities through the Lens of Interracial Intimacy,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38, no. 10 (2015): 1690–­706. 15 Diane Hughes and Linda Chen, “The Nature of Parents’ Race-­Related Communications to Children: A Developmental Perspective,” in Child Psychology: A Handbook of Contemporary Issues, ed. Lawrence Balter and Catherine S. Tamis-­ LeMonda (Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis), 467–­90. 16 Nikki Khanna, Biracial in America: Forming and Performing Racial Identity (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011).

Notes | 249

17 George A. Yancey, Who Is White? Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003). 18 Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014). 19 Stephanie E. Afful, Corinne Wohlford, and Suzanne M. Stoelting, “Beyond ‘Difference’: Examining the Process and Flexibility of Racial Identity in Interracial Marriages,” special issue, Journal of Social Issues: A Journal of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues 71, no. 4 (2015): 660. 20 Steinbugler, “‘I’m Black.’” 21 France Winddance Twine and Amy Steinbugler, “The Gap between Whites and Whiteness: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy,” DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race 3, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 341–­63. 22 France Winddance Twine, A White Side of Black Britain: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011). 23 Yancey, Who Is White? 24 Yancey, Who Is White? 25 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-­Blind Racism and the Perspectives of Racial Inequality in the United States, 5th ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017). 26 Nikki Khanna, “‘If You’re Half Black, You’re Just Black’: Reflected Appraisals and the Persistence of the One Drop Rule in the South,” The Sociological Quarterly 51, no. 1 (2010): 96–­121. 27 Afful, Wohlford, and Stoetling, “Beyond ‘Difference,’” 660. 28 This process of “becoming black” follows Michelle Wright’s important discussion on the topic: Becoming Black: Creating Identity in the African Diaspora (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003). 29 José Muñoz, Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999). 30 Wright, Becoming Black. 31 Twine, A White Side of Black Britain. 32 Mary C. Waters, Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America (Berkeley: The Regents of the University of California, 1990). 33 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and Tracey Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children (New York: AltaMira Press, 2005). 34 Khanna, Biracial in America. 35 Mills, The Borders of Race. 36 Harriet A. Washington, Medical Apartheid—­The Dark History of Medical Experimentation of Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present (New York: Harlem Moon, 2006). 37 David R. Williams and Valerie Purdie-­Vaughns, “Needed Interventions to Reduce Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 41, no. 4 (2016): 627–­51.

250 | Notes

38 David R. Williams and Toni D. Rucker, “Understanding and Addressing Racial Disparities in Health Care,” Health Care Financing Review 21, no. 4 (2000): 75–­90. 39 Dorothy Roberts, Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty (New York: Vintage, 1998); Dorothy Roberts, Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-­create Race in the Twenty-­First Century (New York: The New Press, 2012). 40 Tina K. Sacks, Invisible Visits: Black Middle-­Class Women in the American Healthcare System (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019). 41 Mary-­Frances Winters, Black Fatigue: How Racism Erodes the Mind, Body, and Spirit (Oakland, CA: Berrett-­Koehler Publishers, 2020). 42 Tamba-­Kuii M. Bailey, Y. Barry Chung, Wendi S. Williams, Anneliese A. Singh, and Heather K. Terrell, “Development and Validation of the Internalized Racial Oppression Scale for Black Individuals,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 58, no. 4 (October 2011): 481–­93. 43 Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists. 44 bell hooks, Belonging: A Culture of Place (New York: Routledge, 2008). 45 Lena Williams, It’s the Little Things: Everyday Interactions That Anger, Annoy, and Divide the Races (New York: Mariner, 2002). 46 Muñoz, Disidentifications. 47 Percy Claude Hintzen and Jean Muteba Rahier, eds., Problematizing Blackness: Self-­Ethnographies by Black Immigrants to the United States (New York: Routledge, 2003). 48 Milton Vickerman, Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). 49 Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, “The Urgency of Intersectionality,” filmed October 2016 in San Francisco, CA, TED Talk, 18:40, https://www.ted.com/; Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991): 1241–­99. 50 Sacks, Invisible Visits. 51 Philomena Essed, Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1991). 52 Howard Schuman, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo, and Maria Krysan, Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997). 53 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and David Brunsma, Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007). 54 Rockquemore and Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children. 55 Elliott Lewis, Fade: My Journeys in Multiracial America (New York: Carroll and Graf, 2006). 56 Janell Hobson, Body as Evidence: Mediating Race, Globalizing Gender (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2012). 57 James Baldwin, Evidence of Things Not Seen (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1985).

Notes | 251

58 F. James Davis, Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991). 59 Anna Holmes, “Black with (Some) White Privilege,” New York Times, February 11, 2018; Mat Johnson, Loving Day (New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2015). 60 Tomas Almaguer, Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). 61 Nemoto, Racing Romance. 62 Brenda Gambol, “Changing Racial Boundaries and Mixed Unions: The Case of Second-­Generation Filipino Americans,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 14 (2016): 2621–­40. 63 Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead (New York: Knopf, 2013). 64 Twine, A White Side of Black Britain. 65 Dalmage, Tripping on the Color Line. 66 Adia Harvey Wingfield, “Are Some Emotions Marked ‘Whites Only’? Racialized Feeling Rules in Professional Workplaces,” Social Problems 57, no. 2 (May 2010): 251–­68. 67 Amy C. Steinbugler, Beyond Loving: Intimate Racework in Lesbian, Gay, and Straight Interracial Relationships (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Milliann Kang, The Managed Hand: Race, Gender, and the Body in Beauty Service Work (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2010). 68 Khanna, “‘If You’re Half Black.’” 69 Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd ed. (first published 1991; New York: Routledge, 2000). 70 Yancey, Who Is White? 71 George Yancey and Sherelyn Whittum Yancey, Just Don’t Marry One: Interracial Dating, Marriage, and Parenting (King of Prussia, PA: Judson Press, 2003). 72 Tim Wise, White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (first published 1999; Berkeley, CA: Soft Skull Press, 2004); Charles A. Gallagher, “White Like Me? Methods, Meaning, and Manipulation in the Field of White Studies,” in Racing Research, Researching Race: Methodological Dilemmas in Critical Race Studies, ed. France Winddance Twine and Jonathan W. Warren (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 67–­92. 73 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racism. 74 Khiara Bridges, Reproducing Race: An Ethnography of Pregnancy as a Site of Racialization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011). 75 Leslie Houts Picca and Joe R. Feagin, Two-­Faced Racism: Whites in the Backstage and Frontstage (New York: Routledge, 2007). 76 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and David L. Brunsma, Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007). 77 Elizabeth Higginbotham, Too Much to Ask: Black Women in the Era of Integration (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003).

252 | Notes

78 Rosalind S. Chou, Asian American Sexual Politics: The Construction of Race, Gender, and Sexuality (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012). 79 Curington, Lin, and Lundquist, “Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace.” 80 Curington, Lin, and Lundquist, “Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace.” See also Chou, Asian American Sexual Politics; Jin Haritaworn, “Caucasian and Thai Make a Good Mix: Gender, Ambivalence and the ‘Mixed Race’ Body,” European Journal of Cultural Studies 12, no. 1 (2009): 59–­78; Karen Pyke, “An Intersectional Approach to Resistance and Complicity: The Case of Racialised Desire among Asian American Women,” Journal of Intercultural Studies 31, no. 1 (2010): 81–­94; Karen Pyke and Denise L. Johnson, “Asian American Women and Racialised Femininities: ‘Doing’ Gender across Cultural Worlds,” Gender & Society 17, no. 1 (2003): 33–­53. 81 Twine and Steinbugler, “The Gap between Whites and Whiteness. 82 Steinbugler, Beyond Loving. 83 Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Anti-­Racist (New York: One World, 2019); Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America (New York: Bold Type Books, 2017). 84 Beverly Daniel Tatum, “Talking about Race, Learning about Racism: The Application of Racial Identity Development Theory in the Classroom,” Harvard Educational Review 62, no. 1(Spring 1992): 1–­24. 85 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, “The Linguistics of Color Blind Racism: How to Talk Nasty about Blacks without Sounding ‘Racist,’” Critical Sociology 28, no. 1–­2 (2002): 41–­64. 86 Kristen Myers, Racetalk: Racism Hiding in Plain Sight (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005). 87 William C. Gay, “Supplanting Linguistic Violence,” in Gender Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2nd ed., ed. Jessica Schiffman and Margie Edwards (New York: New York University Press), 435–­42. 88 E. J. R. David, Brown Skin, White Minds: Filipino-­American Postcolonial Psychology (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publisher, 2013). 89 AnaLouise Keating and Gloria Gonzales-­Lopez, Bridging: How Gloria Anzaldua’s Life and Work Transformed Our Own (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2012). 90 Myers, Racetalk.

4. Intimate Interrogations

1 Margaret Shih, Courtney Bonam, Diana Sanchez, and Courtney Peck, “The Social Construction of Race: Biracial Identity and Vulnerability to Stereotypes,” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 13, no. 2 (April 2007): 125–­33. 2 Jessica D. Remedios and Alison L. Chasteen, “Finally, Someone Who ‘Gets’ Me! Multiracial People Value Others’ Accuracy about Their Race,” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 19, no. 4 (2013): 459. 3 See Remedios and Chasteen, “Finally, Someone Who ‘Gets Me!”

Notes | 253

4 Elizabeth Hordge-­Freeman, The Color of Love: Racial Features, Stigma, and Socialization in Black Brazilian Families (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2015). 5 bell hooks, “Selling Hot Pussy: Representations of Black Female Sexuality in the Cultural Marketplace,” in The Politics of Women’s Bodies: Sexuality, Appearance, and Behavior, 2nd ed., ed. Rose Weitz (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 122–­32; see also bell hooks, Black Looks: Race and Representation (Boston: South End Press, 1992). 6 Ralina L. Joseph, Transcending Blackness: From the New Millennium Mulatta to the Exceptional Multiracial (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013); Hordge-­ Freeman, The Color of Love; Margaret L. Hunter, Race, Gender, and the Politics of Skin Tone (New York: Routledge, 2005). 7 Melinda Mills, “Black Women and Street Harassment,” in Gender Violence, 3rd ed., ed. Laura O’Toole, Jessica R. Schiffman, and Margie L. Kiter Edwards (New York: New York University Press, 2020), 144–­56. 8 Nikki Khanna, Biracial in America: Forming and Performing Racial Identity (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011). 9 Derald Wing Sue, Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010). 10 France Winddance Twine and Amy Steinbugler, “The Gap between Whites and Whiteness: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy,” DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race 3, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 341–­63. 11 Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014). 12 Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, “The Urgency of Intersectionality,” filmed October 2016 in San Francisco, CA, TED video, 18:40, https://www.ted.com/; Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991): 1241–­99. See also A. Javier Treviño, Michelle A. Harris, and Derron Wallace. “What’s So Critical about Critical Race Theory? Contemporary Justice Review 11, no. 1 (2008): 7–­10. 13 Kathleen Odell Korgen, Crossing the Racial Divide: Close Friendships between Black and White Americans (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002); see also Kathleen Odell Korgen, From Black to Biracial: Transforming Racial Identity among Americans (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998). 14 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and David Brunsma, Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007). 15 Rainier Spencer, Reproducing Race: The Paradox of Generation Mix (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010). 16 Rainier Spencer, Challenging Multiracial Identity (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006). 17 Rainier Spencer, “Beyond Pathology and Cheerleading: Insurgency, Dissolution, and Complicity in the Multiracial Idea,” in The Politics of Multiracialism: Chal-

254 | Notes

lenging Racial Thinking, ed. Heather Dalmage (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 101–­24. 18 Mills, The Borders of Race. 19 France Winddance Twine, A White Side of Black Britain: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011). 20 Mills, The Borders of Race. 21 Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, 2nd ed. (first published 1987; San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1999), 60. 22 Margaret L. Andersen, “Whitewashing Race: A Critical Perspective on Whiteness,” in White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, ed. Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva (New York: Routledge, 2003), 21–­34; Michael K. Brown, Martin Carnoy, Elliott Currie, Troy Duster, David B. Oppenheimer, Marjorie M. Schultz, and David Wellman, Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-­blind Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). 23 George A. Yancey, Who Is White? Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003). 24 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and David L. Brunsma, Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007). 25 Cheryl Harris, “Whiteness as Property,” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8 (1993): 1707–­91. 26 Maurice Berger, White Lies: Race and the Myths of Whiteness (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000); Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Routledge, 2002); Richard Dyer, White: Essays on Race and Culture, 20th anniversary ed. (New York: Routledge, 2017); Ruth Frankenburg, Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997). 27 Tim Wise, White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (first published 1999; Berkeley, CA: Soft Skull Press, 2004). 28 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-­Blind Racism and the Perspectives of Racial Inequality in the United States, 5th ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017). 29 Charles A. Gallagher, “Racial Redistricting: Expanding the Boundaries of Whiteness,” in The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, ed. Heather Dalmage (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 59–­76. 30 Jessie Bernard, The Future of Marriage (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982). 31 Yancey, Who Is White? 32 hooks, Black Looks. 33 Naomi Zack, ed., Race/Sex: Their Sameness, Difference, and Interplay (New York: Routledge, 1997); Naomi Zack, American Mixed Race: The Culture of Microdiversity (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1995). 34 If the relationship were to continue and grow in significance, we might consider this behavior protective border patrolling (see Mills, The Borders of Race) in that

Notes | 255

his ostensible rejection of her identity may stem from his anxiety that others may border patrol or reject her white American and “one-­quarter Japanese” identity. A generous interpretation indeed but one that at least acknowledges the complex motivations that border patrollers possess, particularly ones closer (or closest) to multiracial individuals. If Miki’s boyfriend has some awareness of others border patrolling Miki when they discover that she is part Japanese, he may benevolently border patrol her to prepare her for what he sees as an eventual or inevitable experience. 35 Teresa Williams-­Leon and Cynthia Nakashima, eds., The Sum of Our Parts: Mixed Heritage Asian Americans (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001). 36 Yancey, Who Is White?; Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists. 37 Douglas, Purity and Danger. 38 Hordge-­Freeman, The Color of Love. 39 Rockquemore and Brunsma, Beyond Black. 40 Brian Owensby, “Toward a History of Brazil’s ‘Cordial Racism’: Race beyond Liberalism,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 47, no. 2 (April 2005): 318–­47; Jennifer Roth-­Gordon, Race and the Brazilian Body: Blackness, Whiteness, and Everyday Language in Rio de Janeiro (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017). 41 Kristen Myers, Racetalk: Racism Hiding in Plain Sight (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005); Derald Wing Sue, Race Talk and the Conspiracy of Silence: Understanding and Facilitating Difficult Dialogues on Race (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2015). 42 Leslie Houts Picca and Joe R. Feagin, Two-­Faced Racism: Whites in the Backstage and Frontstage (New York: Routledge, 2007). 43 Peggy McIntosh, “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies” (Working Paper 189, Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, Wellesley, MA, 1998). 44 Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism (Boston: Beacon Press, 2018). 45 Annie S. Barnes, Everyday Racism: A Book for All Americans (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, 2000). 46 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, “The Linguistics of Color Blind Racism: How to Talk Nasty about Blacks without Sounding ‘Racist,’” Critical Sociology 28, no. 1–­2 (2002): 41–­64. 47 France Winddance Twine, “Heterosexual Alliances: The Romantic Management of Racial Identity,” in The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier, ed. Maria P. P. Root (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), 291–­304. 48 David Brunsma and Kerry Ann Rockquemore, “What Does ‘Black’ Mean? Exploring the Epistemological Stranglehold of Racial Categorization,” Critical Sociology 28, no. 1–­2 (January 2002): 101–­21. 49 Kerry Ann Rockquemore, “Forced to Pass and Other Sins against Authenticity,” Women and Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory 29, no. 15 (2005): 17–­31.

256 | Notes

50 John L. Jackson, Jr., Real Black: Adventures in Racial Sincerity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). 51 Anzaldúa, Borderslands/La Frontera. 52 Jeffrey Lesser, Searching for Home Abroad: Japanese Brazilians and Transnationalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003). 53 Lisa Lowe, Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996). 54 Milliann Kang, The Managed Hand: Race, Gender, and the Body in Beauty Service Work (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2010). 55 Adia Harvey Wingfield, “Are Some Emotions Marked ‘Whites Only’? Racialized Feeling Rules in Professional Workplaces,” Social Problems 57, no. 2 (May 2010): 251–­68. 56 Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd ed. (first published 1991; New York: Routledge, 2000). 57 Michele Wallace, Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman, repr. (New York: Verso, 2015). 58 DiAngelo, White Fragility. 59 Wallace, Black Macho. 60 Wingfield, “Are Some Emotions Marked ‘Whites Only’?” 61 Wingfield, “Are Some Emotions Marked ‘Whites Only’?” 62 Wingfield, “Are Some Emotions Marked ‘Whites Only’?” 63 Chanequa Walker-­Barnes, Too Heavy a Yoke: Black Women and the Burden of Strength (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2014). 64 Brene Brown, Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead (New York: Penguin, 2012). 65 Wallace, Black Macho, 2015. 66 Sue, Microaggressions in Everyday Life. 67 Rodney Coates, Abby L. Ferber, and David L. Brunsma, The Matrix of Race: Social Construction, Intersectionality, and Inequality (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2017).

5. Disappearing Differences

1 Mica Pollock, Colormute: Race Talk Dilemmas in an American School (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005). 2 Kathleen Odell Korgen, Crossing the Racial Divide: Close Friendships between Black and White Americans (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002). 3 Korgen, Crossing the Racial Divide. 4 Zhenchao Qian, “Who Intermarries? Education, Nativity, Region, and Interracial Marriage, 1980 and 1990,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 30, no. 4 (1999): 579–­97; Daniel Lichter, Julie Carmalt, and Zhenchao Qian, “Immigration and Intermarriage among Hispanics: Crossing Racial and Generational Boundaries,” Sociological Forum 26, no. 1 (May 2011): 241–­64.

Notes | 257

5 US Census Bureau, “2010 Census Shows Interracial and Interethnic Married Couples Grew by 28 Percent over Decade,” CB12–­68, April 25, 2012, accessed June 1, 2018, http://www.census.gov/. 6 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and Tracey Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children (New York: AltaMira Press, 2005). 7 Edward Telles, Pigmentocracies: Ethnicity, Race, and Color in Latin America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2014). 8 Some racial combinations may include white and Asian multiracial, white and Native American multiracial, and so forth. 9 Shantel Gabriel Buggs, “Does (Mixed-­)Race Matter? The Role of Race in Interracial Sex, Dating, and Marriage,” Sociology Compass 11 (2017): 3. 10 Cornel West, Race Matters (New York: Vintage, 1994). 11 Allison R. McGrath, Gleen T. Tsunokai, Melinda Schultz, Jillian Kavanagh, and Jake A. Tarrence, “Differing Shade of Colour: Online Dating Preferences of Biracial Individuals,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 11 (2016): 1928. 12 Abby L. Ferber, White Man Falling: Race, Gender, and White Supremacy (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998). 13 Rockquemore and Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children. 14 George A. Yancey, Who Is White? Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003). 15 Miri Song, “What Constitutes Intermarriage for Multiracial People in Britain?,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 662, no. 1 (November 2015): 94–­111; Miri Song, “Is There ‘a’ Mixed Race Group in Britain?,” Critical Social Policy 30, no. 3 (2010): 337–­58. 16 Mills, The Borders of Race. 17 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-­Blind Racism and the Perspectives of Racial Inequality in the United States, 5th ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017). 18 Kimberly DaCosta, “All in the Family: The Familial Roots of Racial Division,” in The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, ed. Heather Dalmage (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 1–­16. 19 Kumiko Nemoto, Racing Romance: Love, Power, and Desire among Asian American/White Couples (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2009). 20 Mat Johnson, Loving Day (New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2015). 21 Espiritu discusses this distinction by showing how Filipina women differentiate themselves from white American women who they see as sexually immoral and promiscuous. See Yen Le Espiritu, “‘We Don’t Sleep around Like White Girls Do’: Family, Culture, and Gender in Filipina American Lives,” Signs 26, no. 2 (2001): 415–­40. 22 Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1978). 23 R. W. Connell and James W. Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept,” Gender & Society 19, no. 6 (December 2005): 829–­59; Michael Kimmel, Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men (New York: Harper Perennial, 2009).

258 | Notes

24 Chela Sandoval, Methodology of the Oppressed: Theory out of Bounds (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000). 25 Rosalind S. Chou and Joe R. Feagin, The Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2008). 26 Shantel Gabrieal Buggs, “Dating in the Time of #BlackLivesMatter: Exploring Mixed-­Race Women’s Discourses of Race and Racism,” Sociology of Race and Racism 3, no. 4 (2017): 538–­51. 27 Shantel Gabrieal Buggs, “Color, Culture, or Cousin? Multiracial Americans and Framing Boundaries in Interracial Relationships,” Journal of Marriage and Family 81, no. 4 (October 2019): 1222. 28 Buggs, “Color, Culture, or Cousin?,” 1230. 29 Rockquemore and Laszloffy, Raising Biracial Children. 30 Yancey, Who Is White? 31 Song, “What Constitutes Intermarriage?” 32 Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists. 33 C. Winter Han, Geisha of a Different Kind: Race and Sexuality in Gaysian America (New York: New York University Press, 2015); Chong-­suk Han and Kyung-­Hee Choi, “Very Few People Say ‘No Whites’: Gay Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Desire,” Sociological Spectrum 38, no. 3 (July 6, 2018): 145–­61; Erica Lorraine Williams, Sex Tourism in Bahia: Ambiguous Entanglements (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2013). 34 Han, Geisha of a Different Kind. 35 Williams, Sex Tourism; Han and Choi, “Very Few People Say.” 36 Celeste Vaughan Curington, Ken-­Hou Lin, and Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, “Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating,” American Sociological Review 80, no. 4 (August 2015): 764–­88. 37 Curington, Lin, and Lundquist, “Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace.” 38 Chinyere K. Osuji, Boundaries of Love: Interracial Marriage and the Meaning of Race (New York: New York University, 2019). 39 Helie Lee, “Disassembling Helie,” in Becoming American: Personal Essays by First Generation Immigrant Women, ed. Meri Nana-­Ama Danquah (New York: Hyperion, 2004), 135. 40 Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America (Boston: Back Bay Press, 1993). 41 R. W. Connell, Masculinities, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: University of California Press, 2005). 42 A nod here to Eileen O’Brien’s The Racial Middle: Latinos and Asian Americans Living Beyond the Racial Divide (New York: New York University Press, 2008). 43 Kristen Myers, Racetalk: Racism Hiding in Plain Sight (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005). 44 Mills, The Borders of Race.

Notes | 259

45 Michael K. Brown, Martin Carnoy, Elliott Currie, Troy Duster, David B. Oppenheimer, Marjorie M. Schultz, and David Wellman, Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Colorblind Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). 46 Melissa R. Herman and Mary E. Campbell, “I Wouldn’t, but You Can: Attitudes toward Interracial Relationships,” Social Science Research 41, no. 2 (2012): 343–­58. 47 Judy Scales-­Trent, Notes of a White Black Woman: Race, Color, Community (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995). 48 Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists. 49 Herbert Blumer, “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position,” The Pacific Sociological Review 1, no. 1 (Spring 1958): 3–­7. 50 Herbert Gans, “The Possibility of a New Racial Hierarchy in the Twenty-­First-­ Century United States,” in The Cultural Territories of Race: Black and White Boundaries, ed. with an introduction by Michele Lamont (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 371–­90. 51 Peggy McIntosh, “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies” (Working Paper 189, Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, Wellesley, MA, 1998). 52 Gayle Rubin, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” in Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, ed. C. Vance (London: Routledge, 1984); Chela Sandoval, “Dissident Globalizations, Emancipatory Methods, Social-­Erotics,” in Queer Globalizations: Citizenship and the Afterlife of Colonialism, ed. Arnaldo Cruz-­Malave and Martin F. Manalansan IV (New York: New York University, 2002), 20–­32. 53 Korgen, Crossing the Racial Divide. 54 Zhenchao Qian and Daniel T. Lichter, “Changing Patterns of Interracial Marriage in a Multiracial Society,” Journal of Marriage and Family 73, no. 5 (October 2011): 1065–­84. 55 Margaret L. Hunter, Race, Gender, and the Politics of Skin Tone (New York: Routledge, 2005). 56 George Lipsitz, The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2018). 57 Elizabeth Hordge-­Freeman, The Color of Love: Racial Features, Stigma, and Socialization in Black Brazilian Families (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2015); Kerry Ann Rockquemore, “Negotiating the Color Line: The Gendered Process of Racial Identity Construction among Black/White Biracial Women,” Gender & Society 16, no. 4 (2002): 485–­503. 58 Hunter, Race, Gender, and the Politics of Skin Tone. 59 Patricia Hill Collins, Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism (New York: Routledge, 2005); Patricia Hill Collins, “The Sexual Politics of Black Womanhood,” in Sex Matters: The Sexuality and Society Reader, ed. Mindy Stombler, Dawn M. Baunach, Elisabeth O. Burgess, Denise Donnelly, and Wendy Simonds (New York: Pearson Education, 2004), 388–­402. 60 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, “‘New Racism,’ Color-­Blind Racism, and the Future of Whiteness in America,” in White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, ed.

260 | Notes

61

62

63 64 65 66 67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva (New York: Routledge, 2003), 271–­84; Telles, Pigmentocracies. Patricia Hill Collins, “Sexual Politics.” See also Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd ed. (first published 1991; New York: Routledge, 2000). Siobhan Somerville historicized this phenomenon through linkages to the colonization of black women’s bodies. See Siobhan Somerville, Queering the Color Line: Race and the Invention of Homosexuality in American Culture, Series Q (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000). Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, 2nd ed. (first published 1987; San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1999). Licia Fiol-­Matta, “‘Race Woman’: Reproducing the Nation in Gabriela Mistral,” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 6, no. 4 (2000): 491–­527. Fiol-­Matta, “‘Race Woman,’” 11. Gloria Wade-­Gayles, Rooted against the Wind (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997). Heather Dalmage, “‘Mama, Are You Brown? Multiracial Families and the Color Line,” in Skin Deep: How Race and Complexion Matter in the ‘Color-­Blind’ Era, ed. Cedric Herring, Verna Keith, and Hayward Derrick Horton (Chicago and Urbana: Institute for Research on Race and Public Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, and University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 2004), 82–­98. Brenda Gambol, “Changing Racial Boundaries and Mixed Unions: The Case of Second-­Generation Filipino Americans,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 14 (2016): 2621–­40. Vanessa mentioned experiencing visual dislocation when with close relatives and faced constant questioning that required her to reveal her relationship to these relatives to the interrogating strangers. One could argue that because of her known multiracial ancestry, she technically is in an interracial relationship. However, because she identifies singularly as black, she does not perceive or experience the relationship as such. With respect to both her identity and perception, she is not in an interracial relationship. Anita Jones Thomas, Karen McCurtis-­Witherspoon, and Suzette L. Speight, “Gendered Racism, Psychological Distress, and Coping Styles of African American Women,” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, no. 4 (2008): 307–­14. Jioni Lewis, Ruby Mendenhall, Stacy A. Harwood, and Margaret Browne Huntt, “Coping with Gendered Racial Microaggressions among Black Women College Students,” Journal of African American Studies 17, no. 1 (2013), 51–­73, doi:10.1007/ s12111-­012-­9219-­0. William I. Thomas, The Unadjusted Girl (Boston: Little, Brown, 1923).

Conclusion

1 Heather M. Dalmage, ed., The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004).

Notes | 261

2 Sundee Tucker Frazier, Check All that Apply: Finding Wholeness as a Multiracial Person (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2002). 3 Tomas Almaguer, Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). 4 Nikki Khanna, “‘If You’re Half Black, You’re Just Black’: Reflected Appraisals and the Persistence of the One Drop Rule in the South.” The Sociological Quarterly 51, no. 1 (2010): 96–­121. 5 Aspen Institute, “11 Terms You Should Know to Better Understand Structural Racism,” July 11, 2016, accessed November 29, 2020, https://www.aspeninstitute.org/. 6 Kerry Ann Rockquemore and Patricia Arend, “Opting for White: Choice, Fluidity and Racial Identity Construction in Post Civil-­Rights America,” Race and Society 5, no. 1 (2002): 49–­54. 7 Benjamin Gurrentz, “Unmarried Partners More Diverse Than 20 Years Ago: ­Cohabiting Partners Older, More Racially Diverse, More Educated, Higher Earners,” U.S. Census Bureau, September 23, 2019, https://www.census.gov/. 8 Cheryl E. Matias, ed., Surviving Becky(s): Pedagogies for Deconstructing Whiteness and Gender, Race and Education in the Twenty-­First Century (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2019). 9 Ruth LaFerla, “Generation E.A.: Ethnically Ambiguous,” New York Times, December 28, 2003. 10 Amy C. Steinbugler, “‘I’m Black and I’ll Always Be that Way’: Black Identities through the Lens of Interracial Intimacy,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38, no. 10 (2015): 1690–­706. 11 Jennifer Lee and Frank D. Bean, “Reinventing the Color Line: Immigration and America’s New Racial/Ethnic Divide,” Social Forces 86, no. 2 (2007): 561–­86; Jennifer Lee and Frank D. Bean, “America’s Changing Color Lines: Immigration, Race/ Ethnicity, and Multiracial Identification,” Annual Review of Sociology 30 (2004): 221–­42. 12 Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, 2nd ed. (first published 1987; San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1999). 13 Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-­Blind Racism and the Perspectives of Racial Inequality in the United States, 5th ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017).

Appendix

1 Maria P. P. Root, The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996). 2 I borrow this term, “interview conversation,” from Linda Blum, At the Breast: Ideologies of Breastfeeding and Motherhood in the Contemporary United States (Boston: Beacon Press, 1999). 3 I largely centered my recruitment efforts on “first-­generation” mixed people, those with self-­identified monoracial (white, black, Asian, Native American, Latina/o) parents, but also included those who self-­identified as mixed who had parents

262 | Notes

4

5 6 7

8 9 10 11

12 13

14

15

16 17 18

who asserted a singular identity with acknowledged multiracial heritage (a singular mixed identity). This allowed the latter group to reclaim and recover mixture that may have been masked, denied, or unclaimed by the parents or disallowed by society at the time (e.g., given the persistence of the one-­drop rule). Lauren D. Davenport, “The Role of Gender, Class, and Religion in Biracial Americans’ Racial Labeling Decisions,” American Sociological Review 81, no. 1 (February 2016): 57–­84. Davenport, “The Role of Gender,” 74. David L. Brunsma, “Public Categories, Private Identities: Exploring Regional Differences in the Biracial Experience,” Social Science Research 35 (2006): 555–­76. Nikki Khanna, “‘If You’re Half Black, You’re Just Black’: Reflected Appraisals and the Persistence of the One Drop Rule in the South,” The Sociological Quarterly 51, no. 1 (2010): 96–­121. US Census Bureau, “Map of Multiracials in the US, 2000,” n.d., accessed November 30, 2020, https://www.censusscope.org/. Davenport, “The Role of Gender,” 72. Davenport, “The Role of Gender,” 77. Erica Lorraine Williams, Sex Tourism in Bahia: Ambiguous Entanglements (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2013); Chong-­suk Han and Kyung-­Hee Choi, “Very Few People Say ‘No Whites’: Gay Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Desire,” Sociological Spectrum 38, no. 3 (2018): 145–­61. Erica Chito Childs, Navigating Interracial Borders: Black–­White Couples and Their Social Worlds (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005). Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998); Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Grounded Theory in Practice (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997); Ralph LaRossa, “Grounded Theory Methods and Qualitative Family Research,” Journal of Marriage and Family 67, no. 4 (2005): 837–­57. Bonilla-­Silva, Racism without Racists; Herbert Gans, “The Possibility of a New Racial Hierarchy in the Twenty-­First-­Century United States,” in The Cultural Territories of Race: Black and White Boundaries, ed. with an introduction by Michele Lamont (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 371–­90. Brenda Gambol, “Changing Racial Boundaries and Mixed Unions: The Case of Second-­Generation Filipino Americans,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 14 (2016): 2621–­40. Gambol, “Changing Racial Boundaries.” Gans, “The Possibility of a New Hierarchy”; Lee and Bean, “Reinventing the Color Line”; Lee and Bean, “America’s Changing Color Lines.” Richard H. Milner, “Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality: Working through Dangers Seen, Unseen, and Unforeseen,” Educational Researcher 36, no. 7 (2007): 388–­400.

References

Afful, Stephanie E., Corinne Wohlford, and Suzanne M. Stoelting. “Beyond ‘Difference’: Examining the Process and Flexibility of Racial Identity in Interracial Marriages.” Special issue, Journal of Social Issues: A Journal of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues 71, no. 4 (2015): 659–­74. Ali, Suki. Mixed-­Race, Post-­Race: Gender, New Ethnicities, And Cultural Practices. New York: Berg, 2003. Almaguer, Tomas. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Alonso, Karen. Loving v. Virginia: Interracial Marriage. Landmark Supreme Court Cases Series. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 2000. Andersen, Margaret L. “Whitewashing Race: A Critical Perspective on Whiteness.” In White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, edited by Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, 21–­34. New York: Routledge, 2003. Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. 2nd ed. First published 1987. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1999. Aspen Institute. “11 Terms You Should Know to Better Understand Structural Racism.” July 11, 2016. Accessed November 29, 2020. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/. Bailey, Tamba-­Kuii M., Y. Barry Chung, Wendi S. Williams, Anneliese A. Singh, and Heather K Terrell. “Development and Validation of the Internalized Racial Oppression Scale for Black Individuals.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 58, no. 4 (October 2011): 481–­93. Baldwin, James. Evidence of Things Not Seen. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1985. Barnes, Annie S. Everyday Racism: A Book for All Americans. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, 2000. Benjamin, Ruha. Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Medford, MA: Polity, 2019. Berger, Maurice. White Lies: Race and the Myths of Whiteness. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000. Bernard, Jessie. The Future of Marriage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982. Bialik, Kristen. “Key Facts About Race and Marriage, 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia.” Pew Research Center, June 12, 2017. Accessed August 4, 2018. https://www.pewre​ search.org/. Blum, Linda. At the Breast: Ideologies of Breastfeeding and Motherhood in the Contemporary United States. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999.

263

264 | References

Blumer, Herbert. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.” The Pacific Sociological Review 1, no. 1 (Spring 1958): 3–­7. Bonilla-­Silva, Eduardo. “From Biracial to Tri-­racial: The Emergence of a New Racial Stratification System in the United States.” In Skin Deep: How Race and Complexion Matter in the ‘Color-­Blind’ Era, edited by Cedric Herring, Verna Keith, and Hayward Derrick Horton, 224–­39. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004. ———. “The Linguistics of Color Blind Racism: How to Talk Nasty about Blacks without Sounding ‘Racist.’” Critical Sociology 28, no. 1–­2 (2002): 41–­64. ———. “‘New Racism,’ Color-­Blind Racism, and the Future of Whiteness in America.” In White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, edited by Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, 271–­84. New York: Routledge, 2003. ———. Racism without Racists: Color-­Blind Racism and the Perspectives of Racial Inequality in the United States. 5th ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. Bonilla-­Silva, Eduardo, and Gianpaolo Baiocchi. “Anything but Racism: How Sociologists Limit the Significance of Racism.” Race and Society 4, no. 2 (2001): 117–­31. Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Bradshaw, Carla K. “Beauty and the Beast: On Racial Ambiguity.” In Racially Mixed People in America, edited by Maria P. P. Root, 77–­88. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1992. Bratter, Jenifer. “Will ‘Multiracial’ Survive to the Next Generation?: The Racial Classification of Children of Multiracial Parents.” Social Forces 86, no. 2 (December 2007): 821–­49. Bratter Jenifer L., and Heather A. O’Connell. “Multiracial Identities, Single Race History: Contemporary Consequences of Historical Race and Marriage Laws for Racial Classification.” Social Science Research 68 (November 2017): 102–­16. Bridges, Khiara. Reproducing Race: An Ethnography of Pregnancy as a Site of Racialization. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Brown, Brene. Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead. New York: Penguin, 2012. Brown, Michael K., Martin Carnoy, Elliott Currie, Troy Duster, David B. Oppenheimer, Marjorie M. Schultz, and David Wellman. Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-­blind Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Browne, Simone. Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015. Brunsma, David L. Mixed Messages: Multiracial Identities in the “Color-­Blind” Era. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2006. ———. “Public Categories, Private Identities: Exploring Regional Differences in the Biracial Experience.” Social Science Research 35 (2006): 555–­76. Brunsma, David L., Daniel Delgado, and Kerry Ann Rockquemore. “Liminality in the Multiracial Experience: Towards a Concept of Identity Matrix.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 20, no. 5 (2013): 481–­502.

References | 265

Brunsma, David, and Kerry Ann Rockquemore. “What Does ‘Black’ Mean? Exploring the Epistemological Stranglehold of Racial Categorization.” Critical Sociology 28, no. 1–­2 (January 2002): 101–­21. Buchanan, NiCole T., and Cathy A. Acevedo. “When Face and Soul Collide: Therapeutic Concerns with Racially Ambiguous and Nonvisible Minority Women.” In Biracial Women in Therapy: Between A Rock and the Hard Place of Race, edited by Angela R. Gillem and Cathy A. Thompson, 119–­32. New York: The Haworth Press, 2004. Buggs, Shantel Gabrieal. “Color, Culture, or Cousin? Multiracial Americans and Framing Boundaries in Interracial Relationships.” Journal of Marriage and Family 81 (October 2019): 1221–­36. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/. ———. “Dating in the Time of #BlackLivesMatter: Exploring Mixed-­Race Women’s Discourses of Race and Racism.” Sociology of Race and Racism 3, no. 4 (2017): 538–­51. ———. “Does (Mixed-­)Race Matter? The Role of Race in Interracial Sex, Dating, and Marriage.” Sociology Compass 11 (2017): 1–­13. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12531 Butler, Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge, 1997. Callahan, Yesha. “Mildred Loving’s Grandson Says She Wasn’t Black.” The Grapevine. November 4, 2016. Accessed October 18, 2017. https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/. Cashin, Sheryll. Loving: Interracial Intimacy in America and the Threat to White Supremacy. Boston: Beacon Press, 2017. Charlery, Hélène. “Interracial Romance as a Staged Spectacle in ‘Made in America, Bringing Down the House,’ and ‘Guess Who.’” South Atlantic Review 76, no. 4 (Fall 2011): 85–­100. https://www.jstor.org/. Childs, Erica Chito. Navigating Interracial Borders: Black–­White Couples and Their Social Worlds. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005. Chou, Rosalind S. Asian American Sexual Politics: The Construction of Race, Gender, and Sexuality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012. Chou Rosalind S., and Joe R. Feagin. The Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2008. Clarke, Averil Y. Inequalities of Love: College-­Educated Black Women and the Barriers to Romance and Family. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011. CNN Wire Staff. “Number of Interracial Couples in U.S. Reaches All-­Time High.” April 25, 2012. https://www.cnn.com/. Coates, Rodney, Abby L. Ferber, and David L. Brunsma. The Matrix of Race: Social Construction, Intersectionality, and Inequality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2017. Coates, Ta-­Nehisi. Between the World and Me. New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2015. ———. “The Good, Racist People.” The New York Times, March 8, 2013. Coleman, Arica L. That the Blood Stay Pure: African Americans, Native Americans, and the Predicament of Race and Identity in Virginia. Blacks in the Diaspora. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013.

266 | References

———. “The White and Black Worlds of Loving v. Virginia.” Time Magazine. November 14, 2016. Accessed February 12, 2018. http://time.com/. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. 2nd ed. First published 1991. New York: Routledge, 2000. ———. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. New York: Routledge, 2005. ———. “The Sexual Politics of Black Womanhood.” In Sex Matters: The Sexuality and Society Reader, edited by Mindy Stombler, Dawn M. Baunach, Elisabeth O. Burgess, Denise Donnelly, and Wendy Simonds, 388–­402. New York: Pearson Education, 2004. Connell, R. W. Masculinities. 2nd ed. San Francisco: University of California Press, 2005. Connell, R. W., and James W. Messerschmidt. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender & Society 19, no. 6 (December 2005): 829–­59. Cooper, Brittany. “Black Girl Is a Verb: A New American Grammar Book.” Crunk Feminist Collective, March 28, 2016. Accessed April 2, 2016. http://www.crunkfemi​ nistcollective.com/. Cottom, Tressie McMillan. Thick: And Other Essays. New York: The New Press, 2019. Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991): 1241–­99. ———. “The Urgency of Intersectionality.” Filmed October 2016 in San Francisco, CA. TED video, 18:40. https://www.ted.com/. Curington, Celeste Vaughan, Ken-­Hou Lin, and Jennifer Hickes Lundquist. “Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating.” American Sociological Review 80, no. 4 (August 2015): 764–­88. Curry, Thomas. The Man-­Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2017. DaCosta, Kimberly McClain. “All in the Family: The Familial Roots of Racial Division.” In The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, edited by Heather Dalmage, 1–­16. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004. ———. Making Multiracials: State, Family, and Market in the Redrawing of the Color Line. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007. Dalmage, Heather M. “‘Mama, Are You Brown? Multiracial Families and the Color Line.” In Skin Deep: How Race and Complexion Matter in the ‘Color-­Blind’ Era, edited by Cedric Herring, Verna Keith, and Hayward Derrick Horton, 82–­98. Chicago and Urbana: Institute for Research on Race and Public Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, and University of Illinois Press, 2004. ———, ed. The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004. ———. “Protecting Racial Comfort, Protecting White Privilege.” In The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, edited by Heather Dalmage, 203–­18. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004.

References | 267

———. “Traveling across Racial Borders: TripAdvisor and the Discursive Strategies Businesses Use to Deny Racism.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 5, no. 4 (2018): 518–­31. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649218785919. ———. Tripping on the Color Line: Black–­White Multiracial Families in a Racially Divided World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000. Daniel, G. Reginald. More Than Black? Multiracial Identity and the New Racial Order. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002. Davenport, Lauren D. “The Role of Gender, Class, and Religion in Biracial Americans’ Racial Labeling Decisions.” American Sociological Review 81, no. 1 (February 2016): 57–­84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415623286. David, E. J. R. Brown Skin, White Minds: Filipino-­American Postcolonial Psychology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publisher, 2013. Davis, Angela Y. Women, Race, and Class. New York: Vintage, 1981. Davis, F. James. Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991. Dawkins, Marcia Alesan. Clearly Invisible: Racial Passing and the Color of Cultural Identity. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012. Delgado, Richard. “Words that Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name Calling.” In Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment, edited by J. M. Matsuda, C. R. Lawrence, R. Delgado, and K. Williams Crenshaw, 89–­110. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993. DiAngelo, Robin. White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism. Boston: Beacon Press, 2018. Diaz, Junot. “How to Date a Brown Girl (Black Girl, White Girl, or Halfie).” The New Yorker, December 25, 1995. https://www.newyorker.com/. Djamba, Yanyi K., and Sitawa R. Kimuna, “Are Americans Really in Favor of Interracial Marriage? A Closer Look at When They Are Asked about Black–­White Marriage for Their Relatives.” Journal of Black Studies 45, no. 6 (September 2014): 528–­44. Doane, Ashley, and Eduardo Bonilla-­Silva, eds. White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism. New York: Routledge, 2003. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Routledge, 2002. Doyle, Jamie M., and Grace Kao. “Are Racial Identities of Multiracials Stable: Changing Racial Self-­Identification among Single and Multiple Race Individuals.” Social Psychology Quarterly 70, no. 4 (2007): 405–­23. Dyer, Richard. White: Essays on Race and Culture. 20th anniversary ed. New York: Routledge, 2017. Edmonds, Patricia. “Black and White: These Twins Will Make You Rethink Race.” National Geographic’s The Race Issue, April 2018. Accessed October 25, 2018. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/. Edwards, Korie, Katrina Carter-­Tellison, and Cedric Herring. “For Richer, for Poorer, whether Dark or Light: Skin Tone, Marital Status, and Spouse’s Earnings.” In Skin Deep: How Race and Complexion Matter in the ‘Color-­Blind’ Era, edited by Cedric

268 | References

Herring, Verna Keith, and Hayward Derrick Horton, 65–­81. Chicago and Urbana: Institute for Research on Race and Public Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, and University of Illinois Press, 2004. Enloe, Cynthia. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014. Essed, Philomena. Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991. Espiritu, Yen Le. “‘We Don’t Sleep around Like White Girls Do’: Family, Culture, and Gender in Filipina American Lives.” Signs 26, no. 2 (2001): 415–­40. Ferber, Abby L. White Man Falling: Race, Gender, and White Supremacy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998. Fiol-­Matta, Licia. “‘Race Woman’: Reproducing the Nation in Gabriela Mistral.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 6, no. 4 (2000): 491–­527. Forbes, Jack A. Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-­Black Peoples. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1993. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1977. Franco, Marisa G., and Karen M. O’Brien. “Racial Identity Invalidation with Multiracial Individuals: An Instrument Development Study.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 24, no. 1 (2018): 112–­25. Frankenburg, Ruth. Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997. Frazier, Sundee Tucker. Check All That Apply: Finding Wholeness as a Multiracial Person. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2002. Gallagher, Charles A. “Racial Redistricting: Expanding the Boundaries of Whiteness.” In The Politics Of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, edited by Heather Dalmage, 59–­76. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004. ———. “White Like Me? Methods, Meaning, and Manipulation in the Field of White Studies.” In Racing Research, Researching Race: Methodological Dilemmas in Critical Race Studies, edited by France Winddance Twine and Jonathan W. Warren, 67–­92. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Gambol, Brenda. “Changing Racial Boundaries and Mixed Unions: The Case of Second-­Generation Filipino Americans.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 14 (2016): 2621–­40. Gans, Herbert. “The Possibility of a New Racial Hierarchy in the Twenty-­First-­Century United States.” In The Cultural Territories of Race: Black and White Boundaries, edited and introduction by Michele Lamont, 371–­90. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Gay, William C. “Supplanting Linguistic Violence.” In Gender Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2nd ed., edited by Jessica Schiffman and Margie Edwards, 435–­42. New York: New York University Press. Gillem, Angela R., and Cathy A. Thompson. Biracial Women in Therapy: Between a Rock and the Hard Place of Race. New York: The Haworth Press, 2004.

References | 269

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Directed by Stanley Kramer. Produced by Stanley Kramer. Columbia Pictures, 1967. Gurrentz, Benjamin. “Unmarried Partners more Diverse Than 20 Years Ago. Cohabiting Partners Older, More Racially Diverse, More Educated, Higher Earners.” U.S. Census Bureau, September 23, 2019. https://www.census.gov/. Guterl, Matthew Pratt. Seeing Race in Modern America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2015. Hamri, Sanaa, dir. Something New. New York: Focus Features, 2006. Han, C. Winter. Geisha of a Different Kind: Race and Sexuality in Gaysian America. New York: New York University Press, 2015. Han, Chong-­suk, and Kyung-­Hee Choi. “Very Few People Say ‘No Whites’: Gay Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Desire.” Sociological Spectrum 38, no. 3 (July 6, 2018): 145–­61. doi:10.1080/02732173.2018.1469444. Hanisch, Carol. “The Personal Is Political: The Women’s Liberation Movement Classic with a New Explanatory Introduction.” January 2006. Accessed June 1, 2020. http://www.carolhanisch.org/. Haritaworn, Jin. “Beautiful Beasts. Ambivalence and Distinction in the Gender Identity Negotiations of Multiracialised Women of Thai Descent.” Women’s Studies International Forum 30, no. 5 (2007): 391–­403. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2007.07.003. ———. “Caucasian and Thai Make a Good Mix: Gender, Ambivalence and the ‘Mixed Race’ Body.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 12, no. 1 (2009): 59–­78. Harper, Phillip Brian. “The Evidence of Felt Intuition: Minority Experience, Everyday Life, and Critical Speculative Knowledge.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 6, no. 4 (2000): 641–­57. Harris, Cheryl. “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8 (1993): 1707–­91. Harris, David R., and Jeremiah Joseph Sim. “Who Is Multiracial? Assessing the Complexity of Lived Race.” American Sociological Review 67, no. 4 (August 2002): 614–­27. Harris-­Perry, Melissa. Sister Citizen: Shame, Stereotypes, and Black Women in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011. Harvey Wingfield, Adia. “Are Some Emotions Marked ‘Whites Only’? Racialized Feeling Rules in Professional Workplaces.” Social Problems 57, no. 2 (May 2010): 251–­68. Hattery, Angela J., and Earl Smith, eds. Interracial Relationships in the 21st Century. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2009. ———, eds. Policing Black Bodies: How Black Lives Are Surveilled and How to Work for Change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017. Herman, Melissa R., and Mary E. Campbell. “I Wouldn’t, but You Can: Attitudes toward Interracial Relationships.” Social Science Research 41, no. 2 (2012): 343–­58. Hernandez, Tanya Kateri. “Multiracial Matrix: The Role of Race Ideology in the Enforcement of Anti-­discrimination Laws, a United States–­Latin America Comparison.” Cornell Law Review 87, no. 5 (2001–­2002): 1093–­176. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/. Herring, Cedric, Verna Keith, and Hayward Derrick Horton, eds. Skin Deep: How Race and Complexion Matter in the ‘Color-­Blind’ Era. Chicago and Urbana: Institute for

270 | References

Research on Race and Public Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, and University of Illinois Press, 2004. Higginbotham, Elizabeth. Too Much to Ask: Black Women in the Era of Integration. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Hintzen, Percy Claude, and Jean Muteba Rahier, eds. Problematizing Blackness: Self-­ Ethnographies by Black Immigrants to the United States. New York: Routledge, 2003. Hobson, Janell. Body as Evidence: Mediating Race, Globalizing Gender. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2012. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2012. Hodes, Martha. Sex, Love, Race: Crossing Boundaries in North American History. New York: New York University Press, 1999. Holmes, Anna. “Black with (Some) White Privilege.” The New York Times, February 11, 2018. hooks, bell. Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2014. ———. All about Love: New Visions. New York: William Morrow, 2018. ———. Belonging: A Culture of Place. New York: Routledge, 2008. ———. Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press, 1992. ———. “Selling Hot Pussy: Representations of Black Female Sexuality in the Cultural Marketplace.” In The Politics of Women’s Bodies: Sexuality, Appearance, and Behavior, 2nd ed., edited by Rose Weitz, 122–­32. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Hordge-­Freeman, Elizabeth. The Color of Love: Racial Features, Stigma, and Socialization in Black Brazilian Families. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2015. Horton, Hayward Derrick. “Racism, Whitespace, and the Rise of the Neo-­Mulattoes.” In Mixed Messages: Multiracial Identities in the “Color-­Blind” Era, edited by David L. Brunsma, 117–­24. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2006. Houts Picca, Leslie, and Joe R. Feagin. Two-­Faced Racism: Whites in the Backstage and Frontstage. New York: Routledge, 2007. Hughes, Diane, and Linda Chen, “The Nature of Parents’ Race-­Related Communications to Children: A Developmental Perspective.” In Child Psychology: A Handbook of Contemporary Issues, edited by Lawrence Balter and Catherine S. Tamis-­LeMonda, 467–­90. Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis. Hunter, Margaret L. Race, Gender, and the Politics of Skin Tone. New York: Routledge, 2005. Jackson, Jr., John L. Real Black: Adventures in Racial Sincerity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Johnson, Mat. Loving Day. New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2015. Jordan-­Zachery, Julia. Shadow Bodies: Black Women, Ideology, Representation, and Politics. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2017. Joseph, Ralina L. Transcending Blackness: From the New Millennium Mulatta to the Exceptional Multiracial. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013.

References | 271

Kang, Milliann. The Managed Hand: Race, Gender, and the Body in Beauty Service Work. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2010. Kang Fu, Vincent K., and Nicholas H. Wolfinger. “Broken Boundaries or Broken Marriages? Racial Intermarriage and Divorce in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly 92, no. 4 (December 2010): 1096–­117. doi:10.1111/j.1540–­6237.2011.00809. Kapur, Manju. Dutiful Daughters. New York: Penguin, 1998. Keating, AnaLouise, and Gloria Gonzales-­Lopez. Bridging: How Gloria Anzaldua’s Life and Work Transformed Our Own. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2012. Kendi, Ibram X. How to Be an Anti-­Racist. New York: One World, 2019. ———. Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America. New York: Bold Type Books, 2017. Khanna, Nikki. Biracial in America: Forming and Performing Racial Identity. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011. ———. “‘If You’re Half Black, You’re Just Black’: Reflected Appraisals and the Persistence of the One Drop Rule in the South.” The Sociological Quarterly 51, no. 1 (2010): 96–­121. Kibria, Nazli. Becoming Asian American: Second-­Generation Chinese and Korean American Identities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ———. Family Tightrope: The Changing Lives of Vietnamese Americans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. Kimmel, Michael. Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. New York: Harper Perennial, 2009. King-­O’Riain, Rebecca, Stephen Small, Minelle Mahtani, Miri Song, and Paul Spickard, eds. Global Mixed Race. New York: New York University Press, 2014. Korgen, Kathleen Odell. Crossing the Racial Divide: Close Friendships between Black and White Americans. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. ———. From Black to Biracial: Transforming Racial Identity among Americans. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998. Kornmeier, Jürgen, and Michael Bach. “Ambiguous Figures—­What Happens in the Brain when Perception Changes but Not the Stimulus.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6 (2012): Article 51. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00051. Krysan, Maria, and Sarah Moberg. “Trends in Racial Attitudes.” University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs, August 25, 2016. http://igpa.uillinois.edu/. LaFerla, Ruth. “Generation E.A.: Ethnically Ambiguous.” New York Times, December 28, 2003. LaRossa, Ralph. “Grounded Theory Methods and Qualitative Family Research.” Journal of Marriage and Family 67, no. 4 (2005): 837–­57. Lee, Helie. “Disassembling Helie.” In Becoming American: Personal Essays by First Generation Immigrant Women, edited by Meri Nana-­Ama Danquah, 126–­35. New York: Hyperion, 2004. Lee, Jennifer, and Frank D. Bean. “America’s Changing Color Lines: Immigration, Race/Ethnicity, and Multiracial Identification.” Annual Review of Sociology 30 (2004): 221–­42.

272 | References

———. “Reinventing the Color Line: Immigration and America’s New Racial/Ethnic Divide.” Social Forces 86, no. 2 (2007): 561–­86. Lesser, Jeffrey. Searching for Home Abroad: Japanese Brazilians and Transnationalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003. Lewis, Elliott. Fade: My Journeys in Multiracial America. New York: Carroll and Graf, 2006. Lewis, Jioni A., Ruby Mendenhall, Stacy A. Harwood, and Margaret Browne Huntt. “Coping with Gendered Racial Microaggressions among Black Women College Students.” Journal of African American Studies 17, no. 1 (2013): 51–­73. doi:10.1007/ s12111-­012-­9219-­0. Lichter, Daniel, Julie Carmalt, and Zhenchao Qian, “Immigration and Intermarriage among Hispanics: Crossing Racial and Generational Boundaries.” Sociological Forum 26, no. 1 (May 2011): 241–­64. Lipsitz, George. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. 20th anniversary ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2018. Livingston, Gretchen, and Anna Brown. “Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 Years after Loving v. Virginia: One-­in-­Six Newlyweds Are Married to Someone of a Different Race or Ethnicity.” Pew Research Center, May 18, 2017. Accessed May 25, 2017. http:// www.pewsocialtrends.org/. Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. First published 1984. Berkeley, CA: The Crossing Press, 2007. Lowe, Lisa. Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996. Manganelli, Kimberly Snyder. Transatlantic Spectacles of Race: The Tragic Mulatta and the Tragic Muse. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2012. Martin, Jennifer L. Racial Battle Fatigue: Insights from the Front Lines of Social Justice Advocacy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2015. Martin, Michele. “Racism Is Literally Bad for Your Health.” National Public Radio Interview with David Williams, October 28, 2017. https://www.npr.org/. Matias, Cheryl E., ed. Surviving Becky(s): Pedagogies for Deconstructing Whiteness and Gender. Race and Education in the Twenty-­First Century. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2019. Matsuda, Mari. Where Is Your Body?: And Other Essays on Race, Gender and the Law. Boston: Beacon, 1993. ———. Words that Wounds: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993. McGrath, Allison R., Glenn T. Tsunokai, Melinda Schultz, Jillian Kavanagh, and Jake A. Tarrence. “Differing Shades of Colour: Online Dating Preferences of Biracial Individuals.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 11 (2016): 1920–­42. doi:10.1080/01419 870.2015.1131313. McGuire, Danielle. At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape, and Resistance—­​ A New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the Rise of Black Power. New York: Vintage, 2011.

References | 273

McIntosh, Peggy. “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies.” Working Paper 189. Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, Wellesley, MA, 1998. Menakem, Reesma. My Grandmother’s Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies. Las Vegas: Central Recovery Press, 2017. Miller-­Young, Mireille. A Taste for Brown Sugar: Black Women in Pornography. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014. Mills, Melinda. The Borders of Race: Patrolling “Multiracial” Identities. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2017. ———. “Everything from ‘Beautiful’ to ‘Bitch’: Black Women and Street Harassment.” In Gender Violence, 3rd ed., edited by Laura O’Toole, Jessica R. Schiffman, and Margie L. Kiter Edwards, 144–­56. New York: New York University Press, 2020. Milner, H. Richard. “Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality: Working through Dangers Seen, Unseen, and Unforeseen.” Educational Researcher 36, no. 7 (2007): 388–­400. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30136070. Moore, III Robert. They Always Said I Would Marry a White Girl: Coming to Grips with Race in America. New York: Hamilton Books, 2007. Moran, Rachel. Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Morning, Ann. “Kaleidoscope: Contested Identities and New Forms of Race Membership.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 41, no. 6 (2017): 1–­19. ———. “Multiracial Classification on the United States Census: Myth, Reality, and Future Impact. Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales 21, no. 2 (2005): 111–­34. ———. The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference. Oakland: University of California Press, 2011. ———. “Who Is Multiracial? Definitions and Decisions.” Sociological Imagination 37, no. 4 (2000): 209–­29. Muñoz, José. Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999. Myers, Kristen. Racetalk: Racism Hiding in Plain Sight. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Nemoto, Kumiko. Racing Romance: Love, Power, and Desire among Asian American/ White Couples. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2009. Newport, Frank. “In U.S., 87% Approve of Black–­White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958.” Gallup Poll, July 25, 2013. Accessed November 30, 2020. https://news.gallup.com/. Nichols, Jeff, dir. Loving. New York: Focus Features, 2016. O’Toole, Laura, Jessica R. Schiffman, and Margie L. Kiter Edwards, eds. Gender Violence. 2nd ed. New York: New York University Press, 2007. ———, eds. Gender Violence. 3rd ed. New York: New York University Press, 2020. Ocampo, Anthony Christian. The Latinos of Asia: How Filipino Americans Break the Rules of Race. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016. Oluo, Ijeoma. So You Want to Talk about Race. Boston: Seal Press, 2018.

274 | References

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2014. Osuji, Chinyere K. Boundaries of Love: Interracial Marriage and the Meaning of Race. New York: New York University, 2019. Owensby, Brian. “Toward a History of Brazil’s ‘Cordial Racism’: Race beyond Liberalism.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 47, no. 2 (April 2005): 318–­47. Parker, Kim, Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Rich Morin, and Mark Hugo Lopez. “Multiracial in America: Proud, Diverse and Growing in Numbers.” Pew Research Center, June 11, 2015. Accessed November 14, 2019. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/. Pauker, Kristin, and Nalini Ambady. “Multiracial Faces: How Categorization Affects Memory at the Boundaries of Race.” Journal of Social Issues 65, no. 1 (2009): 69–­86. Passell, Jeffrey S., Wendy Wang, and Paul Taylor. “One-­in-­Seven New Marriages Is Interracial or Interethnic: Marrying Out.” Pew Research Center, June 4, 2010. Accessed May 4, 2019. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/. Pollock, Mica. Colormute: Race Talk Dilemmas in an American School. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. Pyke, Karen. “An Intersectional Approach to Resistance and Complicity: The Case of Racialised Desire among Asian American Women.” Journal of Intercultural Studies 31, no. 1 (2010): 81–­94. Pyke, Karen, and Denise L. Johnson. “Asian American Women and Racialized Femininities: ‘Doing’ Gender across Cultural Worlds.” Gender & Society 17, no. 1 (2003): 33–­53. Qian, Zhenchao. “Who Intermarries? Education, Nativity, Region, and Interracial Marriage, 1980 and 1990.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 30, no. 4 (1999): 579–­97. Qian, Zhenchao, and Daniel T. Lichter. “Changing Patterns of Interracial Marriage in a Multiracial Society.” Journal of Marriage and Family 73, no. 5 (October 2011): 1065–­84. Rankine, Claudia. Citizen: An American Lyric. New York: Greywolf Press, 2014. Reddy, Maureen T. Crossing the Color Line: Race, Parenting, and Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997. Remedios, Jessica D., and Alison L. Chasteen. “Finally, Someone Who ‘Gets’ Me! Multiracial People Value Others’ Accuracy about Their Race.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 19, no. 4 (2013): 453–­60. Rico, Brittany, Rose M. Kreider, and Lydia Anderson. “Examining Change in the Percent of Married-­Couple Households That Are Interracial and Interethnic: 2000 to 2012–­2016.” Working paper SEHSD-­WP2018. US Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, April 2018. ———. “Growth in Interracial and Interethnic Married-­Couple Households.” US Census Bureau, July 9, 2018. Accessed October 30, 2018. https://www.census.gov/. Roberts, Dorothy. Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-­create Race in the Twenty-­First Century. New York: The New Press, 2012.

References | 275

———. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Vintage, 1998. Roberts-­Clarke, Ivory, Roberts, Angie C., and Patricia Morokoff. “Dating Practices, Racial Identity, and Psychotherapeutic Needs of Biracial Women.” In Biracial Women in Therapy: Between a Rock and the Hard Place of Race, edited by Angela R. Gillem and Cathy A. Thompson, 103–­18. New York: The Haworth Press, 2004. Rockquemore, Kerry Ann. “Forced to Pass and Other Sins against Authenticity.” Women and Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory 29, no. 15 (2005): 17–­31. ———. “Negotiating the Color Line: The Gendered Process of Racial Identity Construction among Black/White Biracial Women.” Gender & Society 16, no. 4 (2002): 485–­503. Rockquemore, Kerry Ann, and Patricia Arend. “Opting for White: Choice, Fluidity and Racial Identity Construction in Post Civil-­Rights America.” Race and Society 5, no. 1 (2002): 49–­54. Rockquemore, Kerry Ann, and David L. Brunsma. Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007. Rockquemore, Kerry Ann, David L. Brunsma, and Daniel Delgado. “Racing to Theory or Re-­Theorizing Race? Understanding the Struggle to Build a Multiracial Identity Theory.” Journal of Social Issues 65, no. 1 (2009): 13–­34. Rockquemore, Kerry Ann, and Tracey Laszloffy. Raising Biracial Children. New York: AltaMira Press, 2005. Romano, Renee. Race Mixing: Black–­White Marriage in Postwar America. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2006. Rondilla, Joanne, and Paul Spickard. Is Lighter Better? Skin-­Tone Discrimination among Asian Americans. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007. Root, Maria P. P. Love’s Revolution: Interracial Marriage. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001. ———, ed. The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996. ———. “Resolving ‘Other’ Status: Identity Development of Biracial Individuals.” In American Families: A Multicultural Reader, edited by Stephanie Coontz, 439–­54. New York: Routledge, 1999. Rosenblatt, Paul C., Terri A. Karis, and Richard D. Powell. Multiracial Couples: Black and White Voices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995. Roth-­Gordon, Jennifer. Race and the Brazilian Body: Blackness, Whiteness, and Everyday Language in Rio de Janeiro. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017. Rothman, Barbara Katz. Weaving a Family: Untangling Race and Adoption. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” In Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, edited by C. Vance, XX–­XX. London: Routledge, 1984.

276 | References

Sacks, Tina K. Invisible Visits: Black Middle-­Class Women in the American Healthcare System. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978. Samuels, Gina Miranda E. “‘Being Raised by White People’: Navigating Racial Difference among Adopted Multiracial Adults.” Journal of Marriage and Family 71, no. 1 (2009): 80–­94. Sandberg, Sheryl. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. New York: Knopf, 2013. Sandoval, Chela. “Dissident Globalizations, Emancipatory Methods, Social-­Erotics.” In Queer Globalizations: Citizenship and the Afterlife of Colonialism, edited by Arnaldo Cruz-­Malave and Martin F. Manalansan IV, 20–­32. New York: New York University, 2002. ———. Methodology of the Oppressed: Theory out of Bounds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000. Scales-­Trent, Judy. Notes of a White Black Woman: Race, Color, Community. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo, and Maria Krysan. Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Senna, Danzy. You Are Free. New York: Riverhead Books, 2011. Shih, Margaret, Courtney Bonam, Diana Sanchez, and Courtney Peck. “The Social Construction of Race: Biracial Identity and Vulnerability to Stereotypes. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 13, no. 2 (April 2007): 125–­33. Shih, Margaret, and Diana Sanchez. “Perspectives and Research on the Positive and Negative Implications of Having Multiple Racial Identities.” Psychological Bulletin 131, no. 4 (2005): 569–­91. Smith, Llewellyn M., Tracy Heather Strain, and Christine Herbes-­Sommers, dirs. Race: The Power of an Illusion. 3 episodes. Aired April 24, 2003, on PBS. San Francisco: California Newsreel, 2003. Smith, Sandra, and Moore, Mignon. “Intraracial Diversity and Relations among African-­Americans.” American Journal of Sociology 106, no. 1 (2000): 1–­39. Somerville, Siobhan. Queering the Color Line: Race and the Invention of Homosexuality in American Culture (Series Q). Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000. Song, Miri. “Is There ‘a’ Mixed Race Group in Britain? Critical Social Policy 30, no. 3 (2010): 337–­58. ———. Multiracial Parents: Mixed Families, Generational Change, and the Future of Race. New York: New York University Press, 2017. ———. “What Constitutes Intermarriage for Multiracial People in Britain?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 662, no. 1 (November 2015): 94–­111, November 2015. Spencer, Rainier. “Beyond Pathology and Cheerleading: Insurgency, Dissolution, and Complicity in the Multiracial Idea.” In The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, edited by Heather Dalmage, 101–­24. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004.

References | 277

———. Challenging Multiracial Identity. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006. ———. Reproducing Race: The Paradox of Generation Mix. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010. Spickard, Paul. Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-­Century America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989. Steinbugler, Amy C. Beyond Loving: Intimate Racework in Lesbian, Gay, and Straight Interracial Relationships. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. ———. “Hiding in Plain Sight: Why Queer Interraciality Is Unrecognizable to Strangers and Sociologists.” In Interracial Relationships in the 21st Century, edited by Angela J. Hattery and Earl Smith, 89–­114. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2009. ———. “‘I’m Black and I’ll Always Be That Way’: Black Identities through the Lens of Interracial Intimacy.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38, no. 10 (2015): 1690–­706. ———. “Visibility as Privilege and Danger: Heterosexual and Same-­Sex Interracial Intimacy in the 21st Century.” Sexualities 8, no. 4 (2005): 425–­43. Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998. ———, eds. Grounded Theory in Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997. Streeter, Caroline A. “The Hazards of Visibility: “Biracial” Women, Media Images, and Narratives of Identity.” In New Faces in a Changing America: Multiracial Identity in the 21st Century, edited by Loretta I. Winters and Herman L. DeBose, 301–­22. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003. Sue, Derald Wing. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. ———. Race Talk and the Conspiracy of Silence: Understanding and Facilitating Difficult Dialogues on Race. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2015. Sullivan, Kevin Rodney, dir. How Stella Got Her Groove Back. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox, 1995. Takaki, Ronald. A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. Boston: Back Bay Press, 1993. Tatum, Beverly Daniel. “Talking about Race, Learning about Racism: The Application of Racial Identity Development Theory in the Classroom.” Harvard Educational Review 62, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 1–­24. Telles, Edward. Pigmentocracies: Ethnicity, Race, and Color in Latin America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2014. Thomas, Anita Jones, Karen McCurtis-­Witherspoon, and Suzette L. Speight. “Gendered Racism, Psychological Distress, and Coping Styles of African American Women.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 14, no. 4 (2008): 307–­14. Thomas, William I. The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little, Brown, 1923. Treviño, A. Javier, Michelle A Harris, and Derron Wallace. “What’s So Critical about Critical Race Theory?” Contemporary Justice Review 11, no. 1 (2008): 7–­10.

278 | References

Turner, Jessie. “Retheorizing the Relationship between New Mestizaje and New Multiraciality as Mixed Race Identity Models.” Journal of Critical Mixed Race Studies 1, no. 1 (2014): 133–­48. Twine, France Winddance. “Heterosexual Alliances: The Romantic Management of Racial Identity.” In The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier, edited by Maria P. P. Root, 291–­304. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996. ———. “Racial Literacy in Britain: Antiracist Projects, Black Children, and White Parents.” A Journal of the African Diaspora 1, no. 2 (2003): 129–­53. ———. A White Side of Black Britain: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011. Twine, France Winddance, and Amy Steinbugler. “The Gap between Whites and Whiteness: Interracial Intimacy and Racial Literacy.” DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race 3, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 341–­63. Tyner, James, and Donna Houston. “Controlling Bodies: The Punishment of Multiracialized Sexual Relations,” Antipode 32, no. 4 (2000): 387–­409. University of Illinois System, Institute of Government and Public Affairs. “Racial Attitudes.” N.d. Accessed June 6, 2020. https://igpa.uillinois.edu/. US Census Bureau. “2010 Census Shows Interracial and Interethnic Married Couples Grew by 28 Percent over Decade.” CB12–­68. April 25, 2012. Accessed June 1, 2018. http://www.census.gov/. ———. “2012–­2016 American Community Survey (ACS), 5-­Year Estimates.” N.d. https://www.census.gov/. ———. “Households and Families: 2010 Census Briefs,” April 2012. https://www.census​ .gov/. ———. “Map of Multiracials in the US, 2000.” N.d. Accessed November 30, 2020. https://www.censusscope.org/. ———. “Table 1. Race of Wife by Race of Husband: 1960, 1970, 1980, 19991, and 1992.” June 10, 1998. Accessed November 30, 2020. https://www2.census.gov/. ———. “Table 2. Race of Couples: 1990.” June 10, 1998. Accessed November 30, 2020. https://www2.census.gov/. US Census Bureau, National Archives. “Welcome to the 1940 Census Archives.” N.d. Accessed September 30, 2020. https://1940census.archives.gov/. Vickerman, Milton. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York: ­Oxford University Press, 1998. Vidal-­Ortiz, Salvador. “On Being a White Person of Color: Using Autoethnography to Understand Puerto Ricans’ Racialization.” Qualitative Sociology 27, no. 2 (2004):179–­203. Wade-­Gayles, Gloria. Rooted against the Wind. Boston: Beacon Press, 1997. Walker-­Barnes, Chanequa. Too Heavy a Yoke: Black Women and the Burden of Strength. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2014. Wallace, Michele. Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman. Reprint. New York: Verso, 2015.

References | 279

Washington, Harriet A. Medical Apartheid—­The Dark History of Medical Experimentation of Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. New York: Harlem Moon, 2006. Waters, Mary C. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley: The Regents of the University of California, 1990. Weitz, Rose, ed. The Politics of Women’s Bodies: Sexuality, Appearance, and Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. West, Cornel. Race Matters. New York: Vintage, 1994. Williams, Aleichia. “I’m Not Pretty for a Black Girl. I’m Just Pretty.” Huffington Post, September 13, 2016. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/. Williams, David R., and Valerie Purdie-­Vaughns. “Needed Interventions to Reduce Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 41, no. 4 (2016): 627–­51. Williams, David R., and Toni D. Rucker. “Understanding and Addressing Racial Disparities in Health Care.” Health Care Financing Review 21, no. 4 (2000): 75–­90. Williams, Erica Lorraine. Sex Tourism in Bahia: Ambiguous Entanglements. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2013. Williams, Lena. It’s the Little Things: Everyday Interactions That Anger, Annoy, and Divide the Races. New York: Mariner, 2002. Williams-­Leon, Teresa, and Cynthia Nakashima, eds. The Sum of Our Parts: Mixed Heritage Asian Americans. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001. Winters, Loretta I., and Herman L. DeBose, eds. New Faces in a Changing America: Multiracial Identity in the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003. Winters, Mary-­Frances. Black Fatigue: How Racism Erodes the Mind, Body, and Spirit. Oakland, CA: Berrett-­Koehler Publishers, 2020. Wise, Tim. White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son. First published 1999. Berkeley, CA: Soft Skull Press, 2004. Wright, Michelle. Becoming Black: Creating Identity in the African Diaspora. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003. Yancey, George, and Sherelyn Whittum Yancey. Just Don’t Marry One: Interracial Dating, Marriage, and Parenting. King of Prussia, PA: Judson Press, 2003. Yancey, George A. Who Is White? Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. Zack, Naomi, ed. American Mixed Race: The Culture of Micodiversity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1995. ———. Race/Sex: Their Sameness, Difference, and Interplay. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Index

“acting black,” 204 “acting white,” 204 American South, also Southeast 117, 132, 190–­191, 223–­224 ancestry, 1, 12, 22, 36, 90–­92, 94, 97, 107, 113–­114, 140, 151–­152, 163–­164, 168, 177, 180, 187, 209, 212, 226, 229, 260n70 anti-­black racism, 114, 117, 126, 191, 212, 218 appearance, xv, xvi, xviii, xix, 3, 7, 8–­12, 14, 19, 21, 28–­29, 39, 52, 61–­64, 67, 69, 72–­75, 77, 80, 82­–­86, 91, 98, 119, 133, 140–​141, 143, 147, 161, 163–​166, 174–175, 179, 200, 204, 208, 209, 215, 223, 227–­229; ambiguity in /ambiguous appearance, xvii, xviii, xix, 14, 21, 34, 52, 57, 62, 63, 71–­77, 82–­83, 88, 94, 101, 103, 138–­140, 143, 147, 161–­166, 179, 200, 208, 223, 229; incongruity with identity, 9, 12, 19, 28, 63, 74, 86, 138, 227; “perceptual ambiguity,” 21 “Anglo-­Indian,” 133 Asian multiracials, 55, 62, 64–­65, 75, 98, 149, 151, 156, 174, 180, 183, 184, 188, 190, 195, 257n8 authenticity testing, 130, 140–­2, 169, 171, 184

“beyond Loving,” 3 “beyond loving,” 76, 233n29, 242n111, 244n22, 247n92, 251n67, 252n82 binary, racial, 33, 114 birth, 8, 36, 53, 75, 80, 81, 135, 178 “black by proxy,” 123 Black multiracials, 41, 62, 64, 78, 117, 177, 194, 196–­199 Black Panamanian, 117–­118 borderism, 14, 44, 45, 85, 102, 166, 186 borders “B/borderlands,” 25, 32, 73, 102, 148, 164, 188, 218; border blending, 3, 22, 25, 31, 53–­58, 60, 62, 70, 83, 99, 101, 120, 122, 135–­136, 174, 178, 192, 194, 228; border brightening, 25, 60, 174, 205, 228; border crossing, 85, 87, 206 border partrolling beneficiary, 107, 154, 189,190, 203; benevolent, 70, 76, 82, 84, 87, 159, 255n34; malevolent, 70, 76, 84–­86, 89, 94, 100, 109, 116, 123, 132, 151, 189; protective, 116, 118–­121, 132, 189, 203, 206, 208–­209, 254n34 Brazilian, 47 bridging, bridge-­building, 145, 147, 165, 218, 236n84 British, 192

beauty, xvi, 19, 79–­81, 98, 140–­142, 199–­202, 245n46, 251n67, 256n54; beauty queue, xvi, 79, 80, 142, 200, 202 categorical blackness, 40, 80, 85, 164, 168, “beyond black,” 54, 96, 146, 236n93, 188, 214, 226 241n88, 241n91, 241n92, 241n93, “clearly invisible,” 9, 21, 24, 231n4, 233n33, 246n72, 250n53, 251n76, 253n14, 235n75, 236n87 254n24, 255n39

281

282 | Index

“clearly mixed,” xx, 3, 8–­12, 14, 18, 21, 24–­25, 28, 52, 76–­77, 84, 101, 179, 201, 203, 205, 229 “COBI”, or continuum of biracial identity, model, 52–­54, 181 cognitive dissonance, 95, 150, 161, 193 “collective blacks.” 77, 86, 94, 113, 118, 132, 133, 175, 179, 188, 196, 214, 218, 228 Collins, Patricia Hill, 48, 238n24, 251n69, 256n56, 259n59, 260n61 colorblindness, also colorblind racism, xvii, 27, 80, 83, 87, 90, 97, 105, 108, 126, 132, 143, 151, 154, 159, 172, 182–­188, 195, 206, 213, 214, 229, 259n45 colorism, 81, 90–­102, 209, 212 colormuteness, xviii, 80, 90, 108, 127, 143, 154, 159, 172, 182–­185, 231n31, 245n39, 248n8, 256n1 “controlling bodies,” 48, 239n43, 241n76, 241nn77, 78 controlling images and stereotypes, 48, 92, 97, 128, 140, 166 culture, cultural practices, traditions, festivities, celebrations, 110 “culture keepers,” 101, 110 cultural maintenance, 110 “dangerous discourses,” 35, 43, 100 Dawkins, Marcia, xv, 21, 231n4, 233n33, 235n75, 236n87 death, 6, 34 desire /desirability, also racial(ized) politics of, xvi, 6, 47, 80, 95, 105, 110, 140, 163, 168, 176, 181–­3, 193, 200, 202, 205, 207, 212, 227, 232n17, 241n73, 246n69, 248n9, 252n80, 257n19, 258n33, 262n11; racial(ized) hieararchy of, 47, 48, 182, 227 disappearing difference (identity), 172–­210 disidentification(s), 114, 117, 249n29, 250n46 disqualification, 134, 198

“embodied capital,” 10, 47, 80, 193, 200 embodied knowledge, 129 emotional labor, 124, 129–­130, 165, 167 emotions (racialized and/or gendered), 165–­168, 202, 251n66, 256n 55, 256nn60, 61, 62 essentialism (racial), 130, 147 ethnicity, optional, 115 “exotic” Other(s), 51, 91, 94, 128–­129, 140, 148, 152, 180, 201–202, 226 experiential knowledge, 115, 129, 148, 218 “facultad” (la), 148, 218 family/ies adoption, 102, 178, 247n93; blended, 135; cohabitation, 213, 261n7; interracial intimacy, 1, 3–­7, 13,15, 18–­19, 32, 35–­36, 39–­42, 47, 50–­51, 60, 67, 71, 86–­89, 95–­96, 99, 112, 115, 119–­120, 129, 170, 178, 196, 202, 205, 209, 213–­217, 227, 230, 231n7, 234n42, 234n44, 235nn58, 59, 236nn98, 99, 237n6; marriage, 1, 3–­6, 8, 17, 22, 24, 31–­50, 56, 59, 61, 64–­65, 67, 72, 79–­81, 88, 96, 108, 111, 113, 126, 135–­136, 152, 178, 201–­202, 213, 331n8; military, 162; “raising biracial children,” 116, 234n55, 236n94, 242n94, 242n95, 242nn97, 98, 245n55, 249n33, 250n54, 257nn6, 13, 258n29; remarriage, 56, 135; stepfamily, stepparents, 56, 134, 192; “twice-­blended,” 135 “felt intuition,” 90, 96, 99, 246n63 feminism, 225, 247n80 feminist research(er), xv, 18, 66, 154, 223, 225, 235n57, 238n24, 239n49, 239n52, 243n14, 251n69, 253n11 Filipino/a/s, 77, 79, 130, 191, 232n16, 244n26, 246n57, 251n62, 252n88, 257n21, 260n68, 262n15 “first-­generation” multiracial, 261n3 fluency, racial, 57, 142–­148

Index | 283

friends, friendships, friendship networks, xiii, 19, 27, 93, 105–­106, 122, 125–­130, 138–­149, 152, 155, 157, 159–­162, 165–­168, 172–­173, 186, 197, 204, 205, 208, 209, 222, 224, 227, 253n13, 256n2 gender, xvi, 5, 47–­48, 80, 82, 84, 96–­98, 100, 109–­110, 118–­119, 125, 128, 142, 145, 147, 165, 169, 192, 200, 205, 207, 213, 220, 225–­226, 231n9, 235n71, 236n78, 238n22, 238n24 gendered racism, 48, 80, 97, 119, 125, 207, 213, 260n71 geographies of race, 132, 191, 220, 223, 226 Grounded Theory Method, 228 Hawaiian, 84, 85, 119–­120, 161, 162, 194, 200, 225, 236n91 hegemonic whiteness, 149 heritage, xv, 1–­2, 7–­8, 10, 14–­18, 21, 24, 26, 33–­34, 38, 40, 52, 54, 56–­57, 62, 66–­67, 70–­7 1, 73–­74, 77, 82–­84, 110–­111, 124, 129–­130, 135–­136, 139–­140, 144–­149, 151–­155, 162–­163, 168, 180, 184, 186, 192, 195, 204, 211, 215, 217–­218, 223–­227, 255n35, 262n3 hiding in plain sight, 22, 60, 196, 211, 215, 223, 244n24, 245n53 hierarchy, racial, 12–­13, 22, 29, 40, 43, 47, 48, 79, 81, 97–­99, 103, 106, 108, 113, 124, 136, 174–­175, 180, 182, 185, 187, 193, 196, 200, 203, 212, 214, 227–­229, 259n50, 262n14, 262n17 homogeneity, 9, 11, 63, 67–­69, 73, 78, 85, 101, 151, 181, 193, 194, 215, 229 homophily, homophilous relationships, 85 homophyly, 173, 200, 204 honorary memberships, 52, 56–­59, 68, 77, 107, 126, 130, 136, 147, 151, 160, 163, 175, 178, 184, 189, 194, 195, 228, 229 hybridity, 18, 54, 201

identity, multidimensionality of, 54, 111, 144, 175; multidirectionality of identity, 114 illegality of interraciality, 3, 31, 36–­38, 40 implicit blackness, 212 implicit whiteness, 107, 119–­120, 150, 181, 185, 187, 193–­194, 209, 213 injuries, injurious speech (words that wound), 91, 100, 123, 136, 141–­142, 169, 199, 203 intergenerational multiraciality, 36, 38, 107, 186 interview conversations, see methods “invisible mixture,” 3, 8–­9, 12, 19–­20, 24, 26, 28, 34, 38, 40–­41, 75, 7–­78, 81, 84, 98, 101–­102, 129–­130, 161, 175, 194–­196, 205, 209, 213, 217, 223, 241n81 justice, social, 31, 35, 178, 220, 239n52, 245n52 kinship, 4 Korean, 125, 128–­130,179, 180, 247n90, 270n11 Latinx, 54, 56, 83, 147, 177, 184, 191, 196, 200, 225–­227, 236n91, 239n35, 244n26, 249n17, 254n23, 257n14, 258n42, 261n3 liminality, 13, 234n40, 241n84, 242n96 literacy (racial), xv, 18, 57, 71, 112, 113, 133, 135–­136, 141–­147, 162, 198, 206, 231n7, 235n58, 235n59, 235n60, 243n9, 243n11, 245n48, 249n21, 249n22, 253n10, 254n19; see also fluency, racial Loving (film), 32–­34 Loving, Mildred and Richard, 3, 31–­42, 49 Loving Day, 19 Loving v. Virginia, 3–­4, 31, 67, 218, 233n17, 237n5, 237n16, 238n31, 240n62, 246n74, 246n75 Malaysian, 133, 192 male privilege, 234n48, 255n43, 259n51

284 | Index

marriage, 1, 3–­6, 8, 17, 22, 24, 31–­50, 56, 59, 61, 64–­65, 67, 72, 79–­81, 88, 96, 108, 111, 113, 126, 135–­136, 152, 178, 201–­202, 213, 331n8; married couple households, 45–­50, 240n55, 242n105, 243n15 masculinity, 89, 149, 188, 257n23 mestizaje, 202, 234n56 methods, 223–­224 interview conversations, 23, 32, 80, 119, 122, 124, 128, 134–­135, 140, 146, 149, 151, 154, 168, 179, 182–­185, 187, 189, 192–­193, 196, 199, 204, 224, 226–­228, 235n77, 261n2 microaggressions, 34, 116, 125, 167, 169, 199, 203, 210, 247n88, 253n9, 256n66, 260n72 mixed race or multiracial habitus, 93, 105 mixture hidden mixture, 66–­67, 218; shifting mixture, 3, 12, 14, 25–­26, 29, 52, 56, 61, 65, 69, 88, 111, 113–­115, 135, 147, 174, 216–­218 monoracism, 60, 65 “more than black,” 69, 124, 231n3, 234n36, 238n29; “more than black and white,” 40 “more than multiracial,” xi, 56, 58, 192 Morning, Ann, 232n6, 241n89, 242n100, 246n61 “the multiracial experience,” 52, 143, 169, 217, 223–­225, 234n40, 241n84, 241n86, 242nn2, 96, 255n47, 261n1 Multiracial Movement, 25, 211 “myth of the black superwoman,” 166 myths, racialized sexualized, 31, 33, 35, 43–­45, 81, 141–­142, 147, 150, 168, 239n45, 254n26; of racial purity, 7, 40, 42, 44, 85, 150, 157, 178, 239n48, 254n26; of contamination, 7, 43, 152, 157, 201 nationality, 118, 145, 147 Office of Management and Budget, 4 42 “one and only one” race, 8, 14, 16–­17, 38, 40, 42, 49, 52, 56, 65, 97, 103, 135

“one drop” rule, xv, 10, 22, 39, 96, 164, 226, 238n19, 245n47, 249n26, 261n4, 262n3, 262n7 “opting for black,” 114, 212 “opting for white,” 66, 163, 187, 242n109, 261n6 “otherness,” 128–­129, 152 Panama/Panamanian, 81–­82, 116–­118 parentage, xi, xv, 2, 21, 24, 52, 55–­57, 60–­63, 67, 70–­7 1, 73, 78, 83–­84, 88, 96, 107–­108, 111, 113, 119, 139, 145–­147, 149–­150, 152, 154, 161–­162, 168–­169, 173–­174, 176, 181, 185–­187, 192–­194, 204, 211, 215, 218, 223–­225 parents, 10–­11, 13, 17, 28, 32, 37, 53, 104–­127, 131–­132, 135–­136, 158, 170, 179, 182, 184–­185, 190, 208–­209, 221, 235n60, 245n40, 245n42, 245n48, 248n13, 248n15, 261n3 patriarchy, 36, 48, 89, 97, 119, 125 “personal is political,” xiv, 231n2 phenotype, phenotypic appearance, xv, 3, 7, 10, 73–­74, 91, 147, 174, 192, 200, 204, 206 pigmentocracy/ies, 39, 79, 174, 202, 244n31, 257n7, 260n60 “pool of eligibles,” 95, 98, 168, 191, 203, 206 population national, 38, 41, 49–­50, 58–­59, 61, 64–­65, 117, 145–­146, 173, 195, 211, 214, 223; two or more races, 1, 2, 6, 14, 21, 42, 49–­51, 53, 56, 60–­61, 65–­66, 69, 97,144–­145, 173, 211, 228–­229, 241n81 “possessive investment in whiteness,” 43, 94, 107, 150, 239n46, 248n6, 259n56 Privilege, racial, 13, 29, 37, 79, 97, 101–­102, 106, 120, 126, 136, 142, 150, 154, 160, 163, 174–­175, 178, 184–­185, 187–­188, 193, 196, 200, 214, 218, 251n72, 254n27 “privilege by proxy,” 36, 189

Index | 285

“Problem of the Ampersand” (Elizabeth Spelman), also articulating the ampersand, 229 Puerto Rico/Rican, 82–­83, 88, 93, 163, 207, 235n69, 248n97 Qualitative interviews (face-­to-­face), xiv, xxi, 23, 54, 66, 219, 223–­224, 230 Quantifiying race, 60 “race talk,” 100, 133, 159, 231n13, 245n39, 248n8, 255n41, 256n1 “race work,” 102, 124, 129, 141, 167, 170 “racial battle fatigue,” 84, 245n52 racial categorization, 22, 255n48 racial classification, 21, 29, 33, 48, 57, 66, 237n5, 241n89, 248n13 racial consciousness, xii, 18, 65, 77, 112, 114–­115, 120, 216, 218, 230, 238n24, 251n69, 256n56, 260n61 racial contamination, 7, 43, 152, 157, 201 racial discrimination, 14, 36, 123, 129, 136, 218, 241n85, 245n44 racial dislocations, see “visual dislocation” racial erasure, 109 racial etiquette, 82, 158 “racial fault lines,” 3, 18, 32, 73, 121, 139, 196, 211, 218, 235n63, 237n12, 251n60, 261n3 racial frameworks, 166 “racial litmus test,” xviii, 142; social group membership(s), xi, 1, 9, 26, 38–­39, 74, 83, 89, 97, 124, 135, 150, 161–­162, 166, 174, 181, 188, 196 racially exilic conditions, 164 racial migrations, 215 racial myths, see myths “racial optical illusions,” 15, 21, 179, 196 racial paradigm(s), 1, 23, 217 racial passing, actively or passively, 17, 19, 21, 71, 149, 214, 231n4, 233n33 racial purity, 7, 40, 42, 44, 85, 150,157, 178, 239n48, 254n26

“racial redistricting,” 107, 248n4, 254n29 racial regulation(s), 4, 6–­7, 9, 13–­16, 19, 22, 28–­29, 32, 37, 39–­41, 45, 50, 66, 71, 73–­75, 83, 85–­86, 88, 90, 94, 99, 101–­102, 104, 108, 116, 118, 121–­122, 124–­127, 130, 135, 138–­140, 150, 165, 169, 171–­173, 181, 194, 200, 204–­206, 216, 230 234n42, 238n31, 243n7 racial resemblance (family), 6–­7, 73–­75, 187, 200, 204, 206, 209 racial reticence, xvii, 44, 143, 172–­173 racial rules, xvi, 7, 18, 21, 40 racial spectacle, 6, 51, 82, 91–­92, 128, 163, 206–­207, 233n24, 2411n83 racial surveillance, 6–­7, 19, 32, 41, 66, 84, 123, 204, 206, 237n7 racism Anti-­black, also antiblackness, 47, 114, 117–­118, 126,191, 211–­212, 218; everyday racism, 160, 245n37, 250n51, 255n45; intensified racism, 142; internalized racism, 81, 100, 133, 151, 176, 180, 185–­186, 199, 214, 229, 250n42; rhetoric of, 82–­83, 108, 160–­162, 180–­184; smiling racism, or benevolent racism, 159; “two-­faced” or backstage racism (Houts Picca and Feagin), 157, 159 racist and race-evasive rhetoric, 99, 161, 183, 184, 229 racial misperception, xv, 70, 86, 119, 161, 209 racial misrecognition, xv, 57, 77, 143, 161, 184, 195 reproducing race, 101, 126, 237n4, 244n27, 251n74, 253n15 “same difference,” xi, 62, 78, 84, 130 sexual violence, see violence skin color, xv, 1, 23, 35, 40–­41, 47, 71, 79–­80, 83, 86, 90–­94, 98, 129, 164–­165, 179, 188, 199, 201, 203–­6, 214, 227–­229 slavery, 43, 48

286 | Index

snowball sampling, 224 social desirability, 5–­6, 122, 185 social status, 97, 106 socialization (racial), 91, 108, 111, 118, 186, 192, 227, 234n35, 236n78, 240n69, 244n36, 253n4, 259n57 sociology, xiii, xix, 165, 220, 225, 232n7, 235n69 Southeast U.S., see American South and Southeast Spencer, Rainier, 147, 237n4, 253n15, 253n16, 253n17 stereotypes, racial, 48, 51, 97, 118, 123, 135, 158, 191, 196, 200, 239n47, 252n1 storytelling, 245n48 “sum of our parts,” xviii, 255n35 transcriptions, 228 trauma, 160, 244n35 two or more races population, 1–­2, 6, 8, 13–­14, 21, 42, 49–­51, 53, 56, 60–­61, 65–­66, 69, 97, 144–­145, 173, 211, 228–­229, 241n81 U.S. Census Bureau, 28, 42, 44, 50, 59, 238n33, 240nn55, 57, 240nn58, 59, 60, 61, 241n82, 242n105, 243n15, 247n77, 257n5, 261n7, 262n8 U.S. Virgin Islands, xiii vanilla whiteness, 152, 199 violence, racialized and gendered, 35, 37, 42–­43, 85, 100, 102, 118, 133, 211, 214, 218, 250n49, 252n87, 253nn7, 12 “visual dislocation,” (Amy Steinbugler), 76–­78, 102

Wallace, Michelle, 166, 256n57, 256n59, 256n65 “what are you?” (question/experience), xvii, xviii, xix, 13, 25, 75, 88 White Like Me (Tim Wise), 251n72, 254n27 “white like me,” 126, 151, 251n72, 254n27 White Side of Black Britain, 235n58, 243n9, 249nn22, 31, 251n64, 254n19 whiteness, idealized/Idealizing whiteness, 48, 180 “white person of color,” 235n69, 248n97 white privilege, 20, 22, 36, 107, 126, 150–­151, 163, 176, 189, 199, 209, 234n48, 235nn72, 73, 237n3, 251n59, 255n4, 259n51 whitespaces, 100, 213 white superiority, 157 white supremacy, 79, 97, 141, 147, 150, 159, 235n63, 237n6, 237n12, 251n60, 257n12, 261n3 whitewashing, 154, 254n22, 259n45 Who Is White? 239n35, 241n102, 249n17, 249nn23, 24, 251n70, 254nn23, 31, 255n36, 257n14, 258n30; see also Yancey, George Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria, xiii Williams, Erica, 47, 258n33, 258n35, 262n11 Yancey, George, 239n35, 242n102, 249n23, 249n24, 251n70, 251n71, 252n23, 254n31, 255n36, 257n14, 258n30 Zack, Naomi, 245n49, 254n33

About the Author

Melinda A. Mills is Associate Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, Sociology, and Anthropology and Coordinator of Women’s and Gender Studies at Castleton University in Vermont. Dr. Mills is the author of the award-­winning book The Borders of Race: Patrolling “Multiracial” Identities. Her second book, Racial Mixture and Musical Mash-­Ups in the Life and Art of Bruno Mars, was published by Lexington Books.

287