1.) "If there is a color hierarchy among the races, it seems to get darker at the bottom." To what extent do you think that skin color determines where one stands within this racial hierarchy? Do you think there are other important factors that determine one's placement?
2.) "In Search of the Right Spouse" establishes interracial relationships as an aversion to family dynamics or characteristics one has associated with their ethnic group. Do you think that in an interracial relationship things can just be as simple as "a natural preference" for a certain race or are said preferences always socially constructed? Can there be interracial relationships without power politics built on solid love? Is this piece still relevant, considering it was published in 1995?
3.) In previous readings, we came upon the argument that the struggle of being a racial minority is equivalent to that of being a sexual one. How do the viewpoints in the Convergence of Passing zones support or refute this idea? Do you agree?
Also feel free to respond to any other part of the readings you would like to address. :)
1. In present-day societies in which western (European) values and ideals, particularly those that define beauty standards, dominate mass media and education, the relevance of skin color is a consequence rather than a determinant of racial hierarchy. I find the author's suggestion that the preference for lighter skin tones is a result of cultural associations -- i.e. light skin = economic privilege in east Asian cultures -- quite inadequate: racial hierarchies have been and continue to be constructed by a history of European economic, political, and intellectual imperialism.
ReplyDelete2. I firmly believe that we shouldn't ever use the phrase "a natural preference" until science has produced solid evidence to support it, and even then, I would be extremely wary of the ways in which the boundaries between "natural" and "unnatural" would be constructed and policed. That one's preferences are always a result of one's social environment does not mean that those preferences are somehow illegitimate or inauthentic, however; in fact, this is the only way in which preferences and attractions come into existence at all. ALL relationships, not just interracial relationships, exhibit power politics--AND can be "built on solid love." They are not mutually exclusive. I would argue that "solid love" requires "solid respect," which requires awareness of power politics and the willingness (and forgiveness) to address it productively.
I am particularly intrigued by those subjects who separated from their white partners after becoming politicized through the Third World Liberation Front. I wish the article gave them more time to explain as well as re-examine their motives.
Passing zones are interesting because they imply authenticity and correctness, i.e. the way to belong to a group and a default way to be. There have been many conflations over the years of types of oppression which create these zones (many were in the article, and I'll include The Advocate's "Gay is the New Black" cover story as well) and the assumption of a lack of intersection (also laid out in the article quite effectively.) These two assumptions of authenticity and non-overlap bother me. The first, authenticity, bothers me because the "borderland" spaces get policed, and many experiences are left out. The non-overlap bothers me because it denies the complex identities responsible for passing zones in the first place. At the same time, it is difficult to get around the singular assumption without asking the "what are you" question. I think that the type of activism advocated by the mixed-race GLB (and, I;d argue, generally queer) people is correct; not all spaces need to accommodate everyone, but they need to be flexible.
ReplyDeleteI am also interested in the white halves of these intermarriages. There are so many studies of minorities "outmarrying" and marrying "up" to whites, and a whole list of ramifications (perceived and real) for these people. But there must also be whites outmarrying for this to occur, so what is it like for them? Perhaps there is literature on this, and we don't see it, but so far it seems that the white subject is not one worth study.
2)
ReplyDelete"Natural" is a very tricky category, especially when applied to desire. Because manifestations of desire vary along spatiotemporal, cultural, and geographical axes, to deny that desire is constructed is to deny its many associated histories. Bodies and contexts are not stable across the aforementioned axes of difference, and because sexual desire is a relationship of a body to other bodies, sensations, or ideas within a specific context, this means that desire must also be unstable.
In a society in which bodies are racialized, gendered, and classed, desire will also be racialized, gendered, and classed. To claim that a person could have a natural preference for a racial group reifies and naturalizes racial categories, which are very much socially constructed (a commonly cited example of the social construction of race is the fact that less than a century ago, Irish, Italian, and Jewish people were not commonly considered white in America, whereas today they are). Preferences for different racial groups are socially constructed just as those racial groups themselves are socially constructed, and this racializing of desire is pervasive within a society where bodies are racialized. Much of how desire is constructed is through race, class, and gender. Examples of common social signifiers of a desirable body in the U.S. include gender normativity, consumption habits or tastes, physical features associated with white, European bodies, and presumed economic stability.
Just because desire is socially constructed and cannot be separated from the way concepts of race, class, and gender are constructed within a society does not serve to de-legitimize it or de-legitimize the love and sex that people have within that society. "Socially constructed" does not mean "meaningless" or "fake" - in fact, quite the opposite. Social construction is inseparable from our understanding of what is "natural" about the world, because it shapes our own perceptual and cognitive systems. Not even empirical scientific investigation with the supposedly pure intent of objectivity operates within a realm unaffected by social construction.
An interracial relationship cannot exist without the dynamics of race relations - if one did, we would not call it "interracial." However, it is important to examine not only the racial dynamics within interracial relationships, but within intraracial relationships as well. I echo Brendan's sentiment at the end of his post (in the way that I am interpreting it at least - if this is totally misconstruing your point, Brendan, then I apologize!); it is important not to leave the white subject unexamined. Sociological literature should not only look at how white supremacy affects people of color in interracial relationships with white people, but how white supremacy affects the white people within those relationships too, and how it structures the relationships of white people with other white people or people of color with other people of color. Hegemonic white supremacy is pervasive, and part of challenging it is daring to reveal how it enters spaces that mainstream society may not consider racialized or exhibiting "racial tension." Understanding whiteness as a specific racial positionality helps to denaturalize it as some sort of standard way for bodies to exist and for bodies to be desirable.
I think the article is relevant in tracing certain dynamics of interracial relationships in specific contexts. However, I think it would be irresponsible to generalize the responses of the interviewees to younger interracial couples or same-sex interracial couples, among others.
1/2(ish)
ReplyDeleteBoth "The Minority Interracial Couples" and "In Search of the Right Spouse" give particular attention to this notion of proximity--most literally, cited respondents discuss what types of racial populations surrounded them and that their perception of who was relationship material was shaped by those they physically encountered. This logic seemed skewed at best and demands some critical prodding. Certainly, groups of various colors are often situated in very close physical proximity to one another, but that does not necessarily inform marriage and relationship patterns. Considering Los Angeles' racial map problematizes proximity's logic--with Black, Latina, and Asian American communities located so close together, more individuals between those groups should logically be in interracial relationships. Yet as these articles argue, the barriers are by no means strictly spatial; rather, the term "proximity" subtextually seems to refer to a more nuanced concept of "access." Namely, what parameters shape individuals' perceptions of who is accessible as a potential partner, and how does spatiality monitor desire? From the Fong and Yung article, it seems that epically-generalized characterizations of certain racialized, gendered groups (Asian American men are particularly heavy hit, it seems) mold how relationally "close" individuals are allowed to be to one another. As other posts have noted above, power plays into this; American racial hierarchies influences what racial pairings--and what types of hierarchal movements--are seen as legitimate or desirable. Additionally, the lack of discussion of queer interracial relationships in both articles points to other assumptions about proximity and access; seemingly, queer partners seem to lack a place within that discussion and even seem to point to those relationships as not only distant but also unimaginable.
I agree with what has been said so far in regards to “a natural preference.” The article was difficult for me to understand in different ways. First of all, I am a very visual learner and am not very good at remembering different names in an article/book, especially when there is not much time devoted to giving background information on the couples… basically I could not remember which couple was which and/or if I had already heard about them or not. When having finished the reading for the first time, I could not tell you if each of the couples had addressed each of the subcategories of the article. I would be interested to know if they had or at least to have seen what the full interview looked like (though I am sure all of the interviews went in different directions). In a way, my initial reaction was to wonder if the authors only selected the part of the interview that most supported one of the sections they hoped to talk about. I almost wished they had done a more specific study on some of the types of marriages they mentioned in the last article, such as, war brides, mail order brides, or marriages during the anti-miscegenation era. The article just kind of annoyed me and seemed to handle things in a pretty simple manner. I found all of the subtopics somewhat interesting but seemed to be more of personal testaments than a factor that affects the general population of interracial marriages among Chinese and Japanese. I wonder what the white partners had to say on these topics. I agree with Brendon and Zach, and would like white subjects to be studied as well. I am not sure I believe that preference will be understood by science anytime soon (but do not actually know that much about science, let alone a scientific field studying preference) and am not sure how to understand preference as a conceptual topic, let alone a reality. As to whether or not this article is relevant, I am not entirely sure. I don’t have a good sense of how things have changed for interracial couples today, but I don’t think it could be used as a source of up-to-date information.
ReplyDelete1)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelly in the irrelevance of the historical context given regarding lighter skin and power in East Asia. To be fat used to be considered beautiful in Western cultures because it meant you could eat as much as you want (woohoo power). See how I just threw in a random fact there? Yeah, completely unnecessary. My initial complaint about this article stemmed from the fact that Lavilla states a bunch of claims and fails to qualify any of them; I think it would've been much more useful to read the book she talks about --Asian American Intermarriage-- than her own article which left me overwhelmingly unconvinced (even though I think many of her statements are probably true).
As for the actual question posed, I think skin color plays a huge role in where one stands. Lavilla mentions how to Cindy's parents, her boyfriend's economic standing mattered much less than his skin color. Often in our society this is the case. Blacks and Latinos are clearly more disadvantaged than Asians who in turn are more disadvantaged than Whites. However, usually, skin color isn't the only factor in determining where one stands; social class plays a huge role. You can be white and still be considered the bottom of society (think white trash). I think that race and class separately examined give too simplistic of a view of the hierarchies of society. Both are necessary in order to get the full picture.
The Convergence of Passing Zones text provides a particularly apt analysis which compares the struggles of racial minorities and those of sexual minorities. Although our previous readings do identify a parallel between Asian-Americans and queer individuals, I believe that the similarities between mixed race, specifically Euro-Asian, and queer individuals are more relevant. That mixed individuals can pass as the racial normative (White), akin to queer individuals passing as heterosexual, is notable. That chameleonic “ability,” which the mixed community and queer community share, creates numerous implications which I find interesting.
ReplyDeleteFirst, race passing add another, novel dimension to the concept of oppression, namely its legal relationship. I relate race passing to sexuality passing in Kenji Yoshino’s academic law review, Suspect Symbols. Suspect Symbols contends that a large majority of US contemporary legal rights stems from a group’s ability to pass. Groups that cannot relate to the normative, i.e. groups that cannot pass, suffer from “empathy failure,” are prone to voter tyranny, and merit additional legal protection. Anti-gay rights litigators therefore maintain that because LGB individuals can pass, they do not warrant legal protection, whereas racial minorities, who cannot pass, do warrant protection. Mixed race individuals complicate this argument: can a mixed individual be more or less oppressed than that person’s lighter or darker sibling? Additionally, relating to the first question, does skin color serve well as a proxy for oppression? Does our focus on skin color also gloss over deeper issues of class struggle?
Second, because passing is often an external, societal observation, rather than an intended action, the concept of the closet also applies to mixed individuals. The racially ambiguous “come out” as this AND that, and the viewpoints in the Convergence of Passing Zones exemplify this well. Much like the perpetual closet for LGB individuals, mixed individuals also have to continually come out since their default is either white or unknown.
2.) I always find it extremely troubling when "natural preference" is used. In this particular case, and in particular as a mixed-race person, there is no possible way that "natural preference" could ever explain the disproportionate numbers of certain forms of interracial relationships (i.e. white and Asian).
ReplyDeleteThe language of "natural preference" erases all the work that went into defining certain kinds of people and relationships as desirable. As a hapa, I am constantly told that I am oh so lucky for my background because I get to experience the "best of both worlds." My racial identity is always seen as a positive, an asset even to living in our paradoxically "colorblind" world. Furthermore, I am also reminded that "MY PEOPLE" are the people of the future; in 50 years, or so it goes, all people will be mixed and therefore viola RACISM will end.
I don't understand how these arguments fly. I find it absurd especially when I'm told I have had the "best of both worlds." My racial identity becomes a bonus compared to those poor "monoracial" people.
In an uncritical analysis it is easy to fall into understand race through a binary lens. Yet groups are racialized through and against one another. When someone tells me I am so lucky, I hear that as racializing white and Asian bodies. When someone tells me that multi-racial ushers in a race-less age, I think about the racism I have experienced in the most intimate settings--in the home.
The way multiracial identity is constructed often leaves out the historical and political context. Whether or not people identity as multiracial or monoracial has extreme material consequences for how resources are allocated.
I strive to understand my own racial identity in its context. This is also why the language of "natural preference" is also so deeply unsatisfying.