The Boundaries of Mixedness

A Global Perspective

Erica Chito Childs, Erica Chito Childs

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000197389
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Marriage & Family Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

The Boundaries of Mixedness tackles the burgeoning field of critical mixed race studies, bringing together research that spans five continents and more than ten countries. Research on mixedness is growing, yet there is still much debate over what exactly mixed race means, and whether it is a useful term. Despite a growing focus on and celebration of mixedness globally, particularly in the media, societies around the world are grappling with how and why crossing socially constructed boundaries of race, ethnicity and other markers of difference matter when considering those who date, marry, raise families, or navigate their identities across these boundaries. What we find collectively through the ten studies in this book is that in every context there is a hierarchy of mixedness, both in terms of intimacy and identity. This hierarchy of intimacy renders certain groups as more or less marriable, socially constructed around race, ethnicity, caste, religion, skin color and/or region. Relatedly, there is also a hierarchy of identities where certain races, languages, ethnicities and religions are privileged and valued differently. These differences emerge out of particular local histories and contemporary contexts yet there are also global realities that transcend place and space.

The Boundaries of Mixedness is a significant new contribution to mixed race studies for academics, researchers, and advanced students of Ethnic and Racial Studies, Sociology, History and Public Policy.

This book was originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Intercultural Studies.

Critical Mixed Race in Global Perspective: An Introduction

Erica Chito Childs

This special issue tackles the burgeoning field of critical mixed race studies, bringing together research that spans five continents and more than ten countries. While research on mixedness is growing, there is still much debate over what exactly mixed race means, and whether it is a useful term. Recently, the British Sociological Association identified ‘mixed race’ as ‘a misleading term’ arguing for ‘mixed parentage’, ‘dual heritage’, or ‘metis(se)’ since ‘the idea of race mixture or being “mixed race” is informed by a racial discourse that privileges the notion of essential races.’ (https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/23900/EqualityandDiversity_LanguageandtheBSA_RaceMar05.doc?1455622777039) While debates around terminology and language remain, growing numbers of scholars around the world are grappling with how and why crossing socially constructed boundaries matter for those who cross them to date, marry, and raise families, as well as those who navigate identities across these boundaries. Regardless of the terminology used, I argue it is important that we critically interrogate what constitutes mixing and mixedness in different spaces, and look for ways to discuss similarities and differences that exist globally. Certainly there are local realities unique in some ways to the specific history and groups involved, and these specificities should be fully explored. Yet this does not prevent us from juxtaposing these varied studies that all focus on some aspect of mixing and/or mixedness to create a global conversation about the multitudes of difference on which these socially constructed boundaries exist and the myriad ways that difference is defined and understood globally.

Looking at these articles collectively, it is clear that in every context there is a hierarchy of mixedness, both in terms of intimacy and identity. In other words, in every locale, the hierarchy of intimacy refers to how certain groups are deemed more or less marriable, which is socially constructed around race, ethnicity, caste, religion, skin color and/or region. Sometimes these hierarchies are formalized through the state like the 2014 Civil Registration Act in Ireland which creates, as King-O’Riain argues, ‘hierarchies of love where the love connections of highly educated white migrants are afforded more importance (or legitimacy) than others.’ The first section, Hierarchies of Mixing: Navigations and Negotiations explores these hierarchies in depth, looking at how mixed couples and families deal with familial and community response to their relationship and family. Through these articles we see how couples, and parents deal with the identities and meanings attached to them, and how they navigate the border-patrolling they experience. In South Africa, Heather Dalmage argues in her article, ‘despite the centrality of non-racialism to the South African constitution, interpersonal relationships in South Africa remain deeply racialized’ documenting how couples avoid public displays of affection, or going out together due to being stared at, harassed or in some cases physically attacked. Similarly, in India, Reena Kukreja’s article exposes how cross-region brides become ‘internal others’, seen as a ‘dhabba’ or stain which their children are also viewed as carrying, based on beliefs about caste and religion. In the context of Scotland, Pang argues mixed families tend to use an ‘ethnically monolithic parenting style,’ effectively limiting their child’s access to their non-Scottish heritage, given how whiteness is embedded in the official discourse of Scottishness, and what it means to be Scottish. While the markers of difference vary, the underlying and intersecting oppressions of racism, colourism and a privileging of whiteness are clear.

Relatedly, there is also a hierarchy of identities where certain races, languages, ethnicities and religions are privileged and valued differently, whether it is based on region in India still tied to notions of caste, or language in Catalonia tied to status which is addressed in the second section entitled Hierarchies of Mixedness: Choices and Challenges. These articles highlight how mixed individuals navigate identity choices within a hierarchical framework that privileges certain identities over others, making it easier/harder, less/more desirable, and sometimes impossible to claim certain identities. For example, in countries such as Australia, Denmark and Spain, those who claim or are identified with certain racial or ethnic backgrounds are marginalized and seen as foreigners, despite citizenship and heritage. Rodriguez Garcia’s article argues multilingualism is valued among the mixed youth interviewed in Catalonia yet among ‘visible minority’ youth who had an immigrant parent who spoke Arabic or an African language, were Black, and/or were Muslim distanced themselves from this part of their identity and language, because it was stigmatized, yet their claims to speaking Catalan and Spanish were still constantly questioned and doubted by others. In Denmark, Skadegaard also documents structural discrimination where individuals are not viewed as Danish because they are racialized as non-white, and subjected to terminology like mulatto even if they object. Yet they are also simultaneously told that the differential treatment is either not really happening or not intended in a negative way, to the extent that some mixed individuals internalize these beliefs themselves. Similarly, in Australia, Stephanie Guy’s mixed interviewees struggle with the ability to have their claims to an Australian national identity validated, because white Australians did not allow them to claim their Australian identity if they performed or were perceived to carry any piece of their non-white identity. Therefore, across the globe we see the ability of a mixed race person to fully embrace their mixed race identity is challenged, even sometimes denied based on the larger societal understanding of mixedness within the worlds they inhabit and the responses of the communities they live in. Despite regional differences, in Europe and Australia, there is a privileging of whiteness, where particular groups and identities are stigmatized and problematized such as Muslims, Blacks and Asians.

In the last section of this special issue entitled Mixed Matters Through a Wider Lens, we take a step back to look at these issues from distinct vantage points of how discourses, whether it be state policy, national categories or academic perspectives, impact mixed experiences. The articles in this last section take very different approaches to mixedness, yet collectively show us how national and state discourses as well as global understandings impact how we study these issues, how countries create policy and how individuals navigate their identities in a globalized world of migration. To this end, Barrat and Ranjitsing contrast the experiences of douglas (a Caribbean mixed identity, which implies Indian-ness mixed with Blackness, fraught with notions of purity) living in the Caribbean islands of Trinidad and Tobago with the Caribbean diaspora in New York City. Using the idea of ‘maneuverability’, this work highlights the very different meanings and importance of place, where the racial schemas of different locales require varied identities, arguing that a dougla identity is much more difficult to maintain in New York City where choosing a mono-racial identity is expected. King-O’Riain continues to push the debate on how place affects mixed families, with her exploration of the tension between the rights of people from different countries to love whom they choose and the right of states to decide who is a citizen through marriage, migration and citizenship laws. States like Ireland may no longer have anti-miscegenation laws, but states can still regulate marriage through a questioning of those who marry outside the ‘racial/national norm’ and a designation of these marriages are inauthentic or shams. Lastly, Rocha’s piece turns our eye to academic discourses, arguing that existing research on mixed identities is grounded in the theoretical frameworks of the West, particularly the American and Western European context and that the intersections between race and power, as well as race, mixed race and heritage cannot be understood in the same way across all contexts, giving examples of the varied language, understandings and experiences of mixedness in Asia and the Pacific.

By juxtaposing these articles, it is our hope that we can push the conversation in a truly global direction that asks how is the perceived dhabba or stain of the children born to non-Meo wives in rural communities in India similar to the perception of mixed race Australians who do not pass the ‘white enough’ test? There are differences that emerge out of particular histories and contemporary contexts yet there are also global realities that transcend place and space. For example, colorism and global anti-blackness is a recurrent theme, whether implicit or explicitly discussed in the articles: whiteness and light skin is valued while darker skin is shunned with pejoratives such as kala kaua’ (black crow) or ‘kali nagin’ (black snake) in India, while in Australia, Scotland, Denmark and Spain, mixed individuals who were perceived as ‘not white enough.’ Yet, it is also important to focus on the complexities of understanding mixedness globally. While much of the research featured showed a tendency for individuals and families to want to identify with a mixed or more privileged identity if possible, Dalmage’s work highlighted how mixed individuals in South Africa distance themselves from a Colored label in favor of claiming a Black identity, and Barratt and Ranjitsingh’s work showed how their respondents embraced their mixed dougla identity in Trinidad and Tobago where it had meaning, yet in New York City opted for a Black identity, which was validated in that space. As these articles demonstrate, mixed identities are not constructed and chosen solely by individuals but rather emerge out of negotiated interactions with families, schools, and communities, as well the state and global media. Critical mixed race research has to continue to push through these complexities and strive to be more intersectional, recognizing the many dimensions that impact mixing and mixedness, as well as more inclusive in terms of thinking outside one’s own geographic location and academic discipline. As mentioned, in the beginning of the Introduction, much of this requires significant attention to be paid to the language and terminology we use. These articles have provided another platform to continue our path to better understanding mixing and mixedness with a global perspective, hopefully providing some new insight yet undoubtedly raising even more questions for future research.

An Unwanted Weed: Children of Cross-region Unions Confront Intergenerational Stigma of Caste, Ethnicity and Religion

Reena Kukreja

ABSTRACT
This article, based on original research in 226 villages from two North Indian provinces of Haryana and Rajasthan, examines the status of children of an emergent category of cross-region marriages among the Hindus and the Meo Muslims that breach customary marriage norms as the brides belong to a different caste, ethnicity, region, and sometimes, even religion than the husbands. Since the mid-1990s, rural bachelors began seeking wives from distant parts of India to meet the local bride deficit. Prevailing discourses of ethnoracism, caste discrimination, and religious fundamentalism shape the lives of the offspring of such ‘transgressive’ cross-region matrimonies. The offspring are not considered ‘pure’ on counts of the low caste, undesired ethnicity, and/or different religion of their mothers. ‘Stained’ as ’internal others’, they do not obtain unequivocal acceptance into paternal kin groups and communities. The inter-generational stigma affects their everyday interactions and psychological wellbeing, and creates hurdles in life prospects including marriage.

Villagers here remark that my husband has brought home a ‘bejaat’, a woman who is not from their caste. When our children grow older, they too will face similar remarks.

Cross-region bride from West Bengal

During play at lunchtime at school, kids would taunt me and call me ‘paro ki’¹ (paro’s child) or say ‘oh she’s a paro’s daughter’. I would feel hurt at being called that.

Daughter, Meo family, Mewat

Introduction

In parts of North India, a male marriage squeeze caused, in large part, by a societal dis-preference for the girl-child and the pervasive use of new reproductive technologies for sex-selective abortion, has reshaped the marriage-scape. Since the mid-1990s, this has led bachelors, rejected in the local marriage market due to their landlessness, unemployment or precarious employment, older age, widower status, or addiction issues, to seek ‘cross-region’ wives from distant parts of India. These men are mostly of the lower classes of the Meo Muslims² and the caste³ groups of Jats and Ahirs among the Hindus. In both these communities, such ‘cross-region’ marriages are considered transgressive as the brides belong to a different caste, ethnicity, region, and sometimes even religion than the husbands.

Among the Hindus, caste endogamy remains the ‘essence’ (Jaiswal 2016: 15) of keeping the birth-based, highly unequal, and oppressive hierarchies of caste intact. For the Meo, marriage with a non-Meo Muslim woman or a woman of another caste or religion lacks ‘social recognition’ and is prohibited (Shamsh 1983: 79). Moreover, ‘sons born to a woman of inferior castes are declared ‘ger jaat’ (strangers to Meo community) and they face problems getting married within the community’ (Shamsh 1983: 79). Even today, despite some erosion to their customary marriage rules due to their greater alignment with mainstream Muslim ideology, marriage with non-Meo Muslims is discouraged (Chauhan 2004: 365).

It is estimated that 20 million Indian women undertake marriage migration each year (Fulford 2013: 02). Customary marriage norms of village exogamy, caste endogamy, patrilocality (residing in the husband’s household after marriage), and caste restrictions creates largely rural-to-rural flows of female marriage migrants. In this context, the distinctiveness of the emergent cross-region matrimonies, similarly involving the migration of the female spouse, rests on the fact that these breach the customary marriage rules of the Hindus and Meo Muslims in North India.

Despite claims of the modernising impulse of Indians, caused by India’s integration into the global capitalist market, increased rural–urban migration, and the unquestioning embrace of Western cultural values by most urban elites, studies on inter-caste marriage in urban India reveal a strong preference for same-caste marriages (Ahuja and Ostermann 2016). Similarly, the National Family Health Survey of 2005–2006 showed inter-religious marriages comprise a mere 2.1 per cent of total marriages (International Institute for Population Sciences [IIPS] and Macro International 2007).

My original research in the two North Indian provinces of Haryana and Rajasthan shows that ‘cross-region’ brides, while desired for their free productive and reproductive labour, are treated as ‘internal others’ due to their undesired caste, ethnicity, and/or religion. They face caste discrimination, ethnoracist prejudice, forcible cultural assimilation, and religious othering on a daily basis, both within the private space of conjugal families and public space of rural North Indian communities. In this article, I demonstrate that the so-called ‘stain’ (dhabba) of the internal other bestowed on the women extends to their offspring. Despite the locally prevalent belief that children are the ‘seed of the father with the mother acting as a fallow field’, these children do not obtain unequivocal acceptance into paternal kin groups and communities. They are not considered ‘pure’ enough and this diluted identity relegates them to second-class status within paternal communities, creates hurdles in finding suitable local marriage partners, and affects their psychological well-being.

Literature Review

The north Indian province of Haryana has been in the limelight for the gender-regressive stance of Hindu caste councils, or Khap Panchayats,⁴ increased caste contestations between dominant-peasant Hindu caste groups and Dalits, and brutal caste violence against local couples in inter-caste relationships. Despite this, a handful of feminist works contend that cross-region marriages assimilate and integrate women from different ethnicities, castes, and/or religions, that they reshape gender dynamics for the better in rural North India, and that offspring are accepted unequivocally within the caste brotherhood (Chaudhary and Mohan 2011, Kaur 2012, Mishra 2013).

In contrast, Prem Chowdhry, in Politi...