Title: “If You're Half Black, You're Just Black”: Reflected Appraisals and the Persistence of the One-Drop Rule
Abstract: AbstractDespite growing interest in multiracial identity, much of the research remains atheoretical and limited in its approach to measuring identity. Taking a multidimensional approach to identity and drawing on reflected appraisals (how they think others see them), I examine racial identity among black-white adults in the South and the lingering influence of the one-drop rule. Most respondents internally identify as black and when asked to explain these black identities, they describe how both blacks and whites see them as black. I argue that the one-drop rule still shapes racial identity, namely through the process of reflected appraisals. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe author wishes to thank Cathryn Johnson, Karen Hegtvedt, Regina Werum, Tracy Scott, David Brunsma, and the three anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier drafts of the manuscript.NOTESNotes1 The term biracial refers here to “a person whose parents are of two different socially designated groups, for example, black mother, white father” (CitationRoot 1996:ix). In comparison, the term multiracial is conceptually broader and refers “to people who are of two or more racial heritages” (CitationRoot 1996:xi). Multiracial individuals may have parents who are of two different racial groups (thus this term includes biracial people) or parents who are biracial or multiracial themselves (e.g., white mother, biracial father). Throughout the article, I refer to respondents in this sample as biracial because they have one black parent and one white parent (as identified by respondents), but I use the term multiracial when discussing black-white people more generally (or people with other mixed-racial backgrounds).2 Because the 2000 Census was the first Census to officially count the “multiracial” population, it is difficult if not impossible to document actual numbers to show how this population has changed over time. Scholars working within the area of multiracial studies, however, generally agree that the Loving decision led to a rise in interracial relationships and multiracial children (see CitationRoot 1992, Citation1996). For exception, see CitationSpencer (2006).3 One exception may be Louisiana, which has historically deviated from the rest of the South regarding the one-drop rule and black classification. CitationDaniel (1992) notes that Louisiana Creoles have historically resisted binary classification as black or white in favor of a ternary system that recognizes the intermediate status of multiracial people.4 Thirty-six respondents were recruited from flyers and only four respondents were recruited via other respondents.5 Sharing information about my biracial background often sparked conversation and gave respondents an opportunity to ask me questions. I believe this opened up the conversation, and I found that respondents seemed to be more enthusiastic about answering my questions once I had divulged some information about myself.6 CitationBrunsma (2006) distinguishes between two dimensions of “identity”—(private racial identity) and “identification” (public categorization, such as on Census forms); CitationHarris and Sim (2002) distinguish between three dimensions of identity—“internal racial identity” (what an individual believes about his or her own race), “external racial identities” (observers' beliefs about an individual), and “expressed racial identities” (words and actions that convey beliefs about an individual's race); CitationTashiro (2002) distinguishes between five dimensions of identity—“cultural identity” (which encompasses one's core values and ways of being in the world), “ascribed racial identity” (how one is racially identified by others), “racial identification to others” (the way one identifies oneself to others, such as on forms), “racial self-identification” (how one truly identifies), and “situational racialization of feeling” (refers to one's feeling of whiteness or blackness based on circumstance and context). While these scholars conceptualize different dimensions of identity, there are overlaps and similarities between their conceptualizations.7 A “public” identity (the way in which respondents label themselves to others), as used here, resembles CitationBrunsma's (2006) notion of “identification” (public categorization) and CitationTashiro's (2002) notion of “racial identification to others” (the way one identifies oneself to others). An “internalized” identity (how one internally identifies or how they see themselves), as used here, resembles CitationBrunsma's (2006) notion of “identity” (private racial identification), CitationHarris and Sim's (2002) notion of “internal racial identity” (what an individual believes about his/her own race), and CitationTashiro's (2002) notion of “racial self-identification” (how one truly identifies).8 A similar version of this question was used in a previous survey study examining racial identity among biracial people; respondents were asked if they more strongly identified as Asian or white (CitationKhanna 2004). While it appears that respondents were “forced” to choose black or white in this study, the open-ended interview format (unlike the CitationKhanna 2004 survey) allowed them the opportunity to respond that they did not, in fact, feel closer to one racial group or another.9 I used these three closed-ended questions to gauge an internalized racial identity. For the majority of respondents, responses were consistent between questions. For nine respondents, however, they gave the same answer (e.g., “somewhat”) when asked how strongly they identify as white and as black, indicating that they identified equally with both racial groups. When this occurred, I used the question, “Is there a racial group, whether white or black, with which you more strongly identify?” to further gauge identity to see if, in fact, respondents identified more closely with one racial group over another. Of these respondents, two respondents chose one racial group over another when further probed, while seven responded that they identified with both groups equally. These seven respondents were coded as internally identifying with both racial groups.10 This statistic was calculated by the author from the table “Hispanic Origin and Race of Coupled Households” released by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 13, 2003 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t19/tables/tab01.pdf).11 Of those raised by one biological parent, nine respondents were raised by their biological white mothers, two were raised by their biological black mothers, and one respondent was raised by her biological black father.12 One respondent was adopted by two black parents, one by two white parents, one by a single white woman, and two by interracial black-white couples.13 The majority of respondents publicly identified as multiracial (or some related term), and this may be explained in several ways. First, it is plausible that respondents publicly identified as multiracial because they knew the interviewer was multiracial and may have felt that was the appropriate or “right” answer in the context of the interview. Second, respondents may have been primed to identify as multiracial given the topic of the interview and the focus of the study. Finally, with the increased visibility of celebrities and public figures who publicly identify as multiracial (e.g., Tiger Woods), it may be more popular and accepted today to identify as multiracial than in previous decades. As described above, these findings parallel recent empirical studies showing similar trends, which suggest that publicly identifying as multiracial is becoming increasingly popular (CitationKorgen 1998; CitationBrunsma and Rockquemore 2001).14 Five respondents claim that they outwardly appear white (this is based on their own self-assessment), and they claim that they are often perceived, by other whites in particular, as white (when their black ancestry is unknown) (John, Michelle, Kate, Kristen, and Sarah).15 These respondents describe a range of responses from other whites once their ancestry is revealed, including prejudice and discrimination (racial slurs, exclusion) as well as “special treatment” (they describe how other whites “tiptoe” around them as to not offend them or appear prejudiced). For these respondents, it must also be noted that there may be situations in which they do not share their ancestry (e.g., they do not have the opportunity or they actively choose to not share the information). In cases where others see them as white based on their racial appearance, they will likely interact with these individuals as if they are white. Hence, in these situations, they may be less restricted in the ways they can identify themselves if they so choose (e.g., they may have the option of identifying as white).
Publication Year: 2010
Publication Date: 2010-01-15
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 226
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot