Download Sayaka Osanami Törngren MIM seminar 10/28/2010

Sayaka Osanami Törngren
MIM seminar 10/28/2010
Discourse of color-blindness in talking about attitudes towards interracial
marriage (WORK IN PROGRESS: PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE)
Talking about race1 or seeing race is a taboo in Swedish society: The practice of color-blindness,
“a mode of thinking about race organized around an effort to not ‘see,’ or at any rate not to
acknowledge, race differences” (Frankenberg 1993:142) is persuasive. Several scholar traces the
color-blind ideology, an effort not to “see race”, within the liberal modernity, especially within
the notion of individualism. By focusing on the idea of individualism and individual choice,
racial inequality or discrimination can be neglected (Bonilla-Silva 2010).
In this paper, the summary of the preliminary findings from my qualitative study on
attitudes towards interracial marriage are presented. Informants shared the idea that origin does
not matter: I argue that racial preferences in choosing a partner is justified and explained in a
color-blind manner by the notion of culture and Swedish values such as gender equality and
individual choice. Uneasiness and lack of vocabulary was observed in situations when interview
informants were confronted with issues where they could not argue for the cultural differences
but rather visible differences seemed undeniable. Contrary to the silence on the visible
differences, interviewees were not reserved about seeing other cultural differences, such as social
or religious differences and moved back and forth unconsciously through the practice of not
seeing differences and seeing differences.
Interview materials show two broad ways of color-blind explanation of the preference of a
marriage partner and attitudes towards interracial marriages: Justification of attitudes as natural
through the values of liberty and equality focusing on individualism and gender equality, and
arguing for the problems that can arise in marriages focusing on culture and welfare of the couple
and the children. Both the idea of individual choice and gender equality defined as part of
Swedish culture and value becomes a very powerful way of naturalizing and rationalizing the
choice and preference of a marriage partner in a color-blind manner. Expressing reservations
towards interracial marriages through focusing on difficulties and problems are seen in previous
studies in the US (Frankenberg 1993; Bonilla-Silva 2010). These two ways of explaining the
attitudes emerge as a rational way of understanding the attitudes, and makes the preference of a
1
Race should be understood as product of thoughts provoked by meaningfully and selectively seeing differences
through observing physical appearances. Race refers to a belief in race evoked by the selective perception of the
phenotype, and alleged differences perceived from the phenotype, not the phenotypes themselves.
marriage partner as reasonable rather than prejudiced. At the same time, these justifications mark
a strong distinction and separation of we Swedes and others.
Analysis is based on twenty eight interviews I have carried out in September to December
2009 as a follow-up to the postal survey on attitudes towards interracial marriage conducted in
December 2008 to February 2009. Three of the informants volunteered to be interviewed, while
other twenty five were systematically and randomly selected from those who have answered the
survey and have given consent for a further contact. Interview questions were formulated based
on the results from the survey. Interviews were semi-structured and were carried out in Swedish;
seven interviews were conducted face- to face and others on the telephone. Having the projective
technique, association and conceptualizing approach in mind, the questions asked the
interviewees to react and respond to the survey results spontaneously rather than to articulate
their personal thoughts on the issue. This is an intentional choice and attempt to eliminate effect
of social desirability needs that can be experienced by the informants. Besides, as Ehn writes,
when people make comments on actual societal questions, such as immigration and immigrants,
people tend to give answers based on how others act and think instead of answering how they
themselves actually think (Ehn 1996:137); therefore to formulate questions that put focus on the
general result and how interview informants perceive the public would react to interracial
marriage becomes even more reasonable. Ehn states that this enables interpretation of the
interview result not only as pure information on what the individuals think and what they have
experienced but also as a social construction of meaningful experiences and cultural identity (Ehn
137).
Informants commonly responded to the questions first by expressing their agreement or
disagreement to the results, then formulated their thoughts on why survey respondents answered
in the way they did. Projection technique did not inhibit interviewees from referring to their own
opinions, experience and thoughts on interracial marriages. There were clear distinctions in the
way informants articulated their own opinion and their thoughts on others’ opinion for example
by the usage of pronouns I and they.
2
Theoretical orientation
Color-blindness
Jan Brekke and Tordis Borchgrevink writes about the ambiguous categorization of people in
Sweden according to the color of the skin and states that “[t]he sensible approach to the issue,
which is also the official Swedish approach, is to consider color irrelevant to the appraisal of an
individual” (Brekke and Brochgrevink 2007:79). It is obvious that color-blindness, “a mode of
thinking about race organized around an effort to not ‘see,’ or at any rate not to acknowledge,
race differences” (Frankenberg 1993:142) is practiced in Sweden. Categories such as
“immigrants” in general or “country of birth” is acceptable. To implicitly address the differences
of the majority and the minority by using the ambiguous term as immigrants, or even with “no
official name” (Brekke and Brochgrevink 2007:80), is the most significant aspect of the ideology
of color blindness. Color-blind politics “proscribe discrimination rather than actively intervening
in the market or other putatively private behavior to rectify racial imbalances” (Lieberman 2006:
13); at the same time color-blindness enables people to believe that discrimination based on race
is not an issue because it is illegal for individuals to be treated differently according to their race,
ethnicity or religion (Gallagher 2003). A Color-blind approach, however, does not mean that
differences are not seen and meaningfully communicated, as the term “immigrants” or “country
of birth” indicates. As Bonilla-Silvia states, color-blindness seem to work as a “collective
representations” that has been developed to explain and justify the inequality (Bonilla-Silva
2010:262), even in Sweden.
Carina Tigervall finds that there are two central discourses in her study of interracial
adoption and racism: A discourse of racism which puts focus on differences, and a discourse of
individualism which disregards differences (Tigervall 2008:242). A discourse of individualism
which considers differences as trivial and irrelevant is precisely part of a discourse of colorblindness. As Tigervall, scholars such as David Theo Goldberg (Goldberg 1993) and Eduardo
Bonilla-Silva (Bonilla-Silva 2010) trace the color-blindness within the liberal modernity,
especially within the notion of individualism. Moreover, Goldberg claims that in the US, it is
liberalism itself, with the principle of liberty, equality, and fraternity that actually give confidence
to the idea that contemporary American society is color blind. Bearing in mind that Sweden is
placed as the most secular-rational country in the World Value Survey, it is not strange that
individualism and liberalism are among the two fundamental aspect of Swedish society.
3
Liberalism is based on the moral, political and legal claims of the individual over the
collective (Tigervall 2008; Goldberg 1993). Therefore,
[f]rom the liberal point of view, particular differences between individuals have no bearing
on their moral value, and by extension should make no difference concerning the political
or legal status of individuals. (Goldberg 5)
Eduardo Bonilla-Silva argues that this focus on individuals is one of the ways colorblindness is incorporated in explaining racial inequality within the liberal thoughts: Individuals
are seen as having choices, and through naturalization of differences, racial phenomena can be
considered as natural occurrences. Ideas of different culture is used in arguing why some groups
are not as well-off as others, and racism and discrimination are neglected as a central factor
affecting life chances (Bonilla-Silva 2010:28-29). Bonilla-Silva states;
Individualism today has been recast as a justification for opposing policies to ameliorate
racial inequality because they are “group based” rather than “case by case”. In addition, the
idea of individual choice is used to defend whites’ right to live and associate primarily with
whites and for choosing whites exclusively as their mates. (Bonilla-Silva 35-36)
Perception of differences and conception of race
Sociologist Goffman argues that society creates a way of categorizing people based on what is
perceived to be “ordinary and natural” for the member of the categories. He says that people do
not realize which categories they belong to until a question of if one is “ordinary and natural” for
the category arises; a person who possesses different attributes and is considered to be
undesirable is “reduced in our minds…to a tainted, discounted one” and such attributes, he calls,
are stigma (Goffman 1990:12). Therefore, the problem of generalization and categorization does
not lie in the categories themselves, but rather lie in the fact that categories not only identify and
inform individuals with more or less universal image, but also negotiate meanings and feelings.
Having in mind that categories inform meanings and feelings, first there is a need to
address how and on what basis some groups of people are perceived to be “ordinary and natural”
or different from the members of the categories. Ted Cantle raises the point that even though it is
essential, the notion of difference is unclear in the debates about multiculturalism.
What constitutes “differences” may be visible, though often many of the differences that we
regard as being significant have few if any such obvious distinctions. The significance of
4
difference is socially constructed around a wide range of variables in both the private and
public realms including social,
social economic and cultural factors. (Cantle 2005:11)
Instead of discussing culture
cul
or ethnicity as an embracing term in referring to differences
that people identify and perceive, a clarification on the differences that are recognized and
considered to be distinctive is needed. The
T table below summarizes the domains of differences
Cantle
antle introduces that are valuable and relevant for this study and in Swedish context.
Domains of differences modified (Cantle 88)
Visible differences
• Color of skin and other physical attributes (Phenotype)
• Style of dress and appearance
• Language
Religious differences
• Religious beliefs and patterns of worship
• Values
Economic differences (Class)
• Wealth and assets
• Income and employment
• Formal education and skills
Social differences (Culture, Ethnicity)
• Food and culinary arrangement
• Family, kinship and settlement patterns
• Social behavior, customs and courtesies
Having made clear some of the aspects of differences, the question that remains is on
what these differences are evoked on
on,, which leads to the formation of meanings and feelings of
the categories. American sociologist Everet Hughes analyzes that in situations where diverse
characteristics or in other word differences intersect, a master and subordinate positions
position of these
differences arise, and certain differences are prioritized as a focus than others; race is one of
these
hese characteristics that he names as having the master position (Everett Cherrington Hughes
1945). For example in the American society, according to Hughes, African Americans cannot
avoid being treated by others as a black person first, even though they might be a medical doctor
5
or upper-class or female, which all should equally encompass the status of the person. Karin
Norman, a Swedish social anthropologist also writes;
as Banton notes, ‘social differences are often taken for granted when they seem to have a
physical basis’ (1988:8) and people will nonetheless tend to classify immigrants, refugees,
and foreigners into different cultural categories according to cultural perceptions of
phenotypical variation or physical appearance, such as ‘Arab-looking, black, Indian,
Korean’. (Norman 2004:210)
Daynes and Lee explain, as Allport claims, that there is no “dry perception” of an object
and there is an instant and automatic connection between what we see and what we know: “When
we see a fire, we do not think further to associate what we see with ‘heat’ and with ‘touching it
means getting burnt’ (Daynes and Lee 2008:123).” Therefore, when we observe and see
differences, we find an automatic connection between the differences and what we think we know.
Daynes and Lee states further that the perception of differences is a cultural and social product,
and has to be addressed in terms of what we see and how we perceive what is seen in a certain
cultural, historical and social context (Daynes and Lee 122-123). Phenotypes only induce which
domains of differences to be seen and to be perceived. I argue that physical appearance has a
master position that presents the visible, religious, economic and social differences. These
differences are evoked with meanings and feelings, and the notion of race is formed in Swedish
society. It is precisely the belief in race evoked by the perception of the phenotype, not the
phenotypes themselves, which makes race an object (Daynes and Lee 120-121)
6
Color-blind justification – ways of naturalizing and rationalizing attitudes
Individualism
And as I said before, we [Swedes] are quite reasonable, we should respect each other and
others’ opinions and it feels like it’s the Swedish mentality. Because of that you can imagine
that you would say, yeah but if that’s what you want you can do it. [laugh] But you yourself
know what you want and what you don’t want. (Interview with Louise)
I believe that it has to do with their [Middle Eastern] religion. It is so far away from ours, it
affects their culture so much and it is so different from our culture. And oftentimes, if you
are Muslim, when you come here you demand to build a mosque. You are so deeply
affected by it [religion] that you expect that society that you have moved to should
conform to how they are instead of the opposite, then it becomes harder to accept these
groups. (Interview with Anna)
I believe also that if someone gets married, it’s a very personal thing, and people should do
what they want. It’s another thing if we the society should accept it. If my neighbor is in it
[interracial relationship] and if that’s what they want [they should have it like that]… it’s
what I think, I think it creates a problem with the community or other things concerning the
cultural things. At the end of the day I don’t care about their marriage because it’s not of
my concern, it’s just their preference you know. (Interview with Karl)
The idea of individualism and individual choice was very persuasive when interviewees
expressed their thoughts on the result that shows differences between survey respondents’ own
preference of a marriage partner and their attitudes towards family and other members of society
getting involved in interracial marriages. Even though one fourth of the interview informants
stated that they would have initial reservations they still stated that they would, from the
perspective of individualism and individual choice, accept and respect their family members’
choice of a partner, as it is seen in previous studies (Bonilla-Silva 2010; Root 2001). An
individual choice is explained as a choice that individuals have in wanting and not wanting to
marry someone of another origin, and at the same time a choice others’ have in wanting and not
wanting to marry someone of another origin. The idea of individual choice functions as a
defending mechanism for respondents’ own opinion of interracial marriage at the same time as a
sign of tolerance towards others who get involved in interracial marriages.
The idea of individualism combined with projection, on some occasion, not only works as
a justification of an individual’s choice of a partner but also shifts the focus from the preference
of the individuals to the problem of the culture. The idea of having an individual choice in
pursuing culture drives the idea of cultural conformity; therefore cultural differences may be
7
articulated as a sign of unwillingness from the immigrants’ side to adapt, and as something that
can be compromised if immigrants change their behavior. This projection can be drawn parallel
to Root’s analysis on some families being open about interracial marriages but at the same time
this openness did not extend to all kinds of culture or differences that are perceived (Root 2001).
Individualism, furthermore, is connected to the idea of Swedishness: Through the explanation of
individual choice, the idea of cultural differences is justified and naturalized as an explanation to
why intermarriage can be difficult.
The idea of individual choice seem to form a tension when there is a discrepancy between
the individual choice and the collective group position, what the individuals want and what the
perception of the individual choice would be. The disagreement between the individual and
collective level can be observed when interviewees employ projection and express that they
themselves do not have anything against interracial marriages, however, they know that there are
people who are against. This discourse coincides with the study by Moran and Frankenberg.
Interview informants sometimes admitted the existence of racist beliefs on interracial marriage by
focusing on other people’s racism (Frankenberg 1993; Moran 2001). This concern over the
collective affects the idea of interracial marriage, for example in explaining the more negative
attitudes towards childbearing compared to dating. Several informants expressed that when you
are just dating or living together it is only about yourself, however when you have children it is
not just about your own choice but it also involves others around. From this, tension can be
observed in the idea of respecting individual choices when individuals have a conflicting idea to
others’ choice derived from a group position. Individual choice that informants emphasize can
therefore be challenged; instead the collective perspective justifies the unwillingness to have
mixed race children. Therefore as Bonilla-Silvia’s analyses, individual choice and the idea of “I
have no problem with it” by focusing on others’ racism, might be just another reflection of a
reservation towards interracial marriages (Bonilla-Silva 2010).
8
Gender equality
I can imagine that it has to do with the view of women, I mean, view towards women is not
equal you can say, not the same as we have in Sweden. I can imagine that it’s such things
that affect the answer. You are afraid of the negative view of women which you can see
some people have…some countries have not come as far when it comes to the view of
women as we have come in Sweden I think at least. (Interview with Jan)
Firstly I think it is frightful that Swedish men’s attitudes towards women are still so out-ofdate. It is my spontaneous reaction. …I think there are too many Swedish men who want to
look for a wife from the Far East because it is too much with a Swedish woman who have
lots of demands, while it’s more comfortable to have women from countries where they
don’t have the same level of freedom and gender equality as Swedish women have. Too
many Swedish men think that it is comfortable to find women from there. (Interview with
Johanna)
The survey result shows that male respondents in general are more positive towards interracial
marriages than female respondents. More than half of the interviewees found gender equality
standard in Sweden as the reason for the gender discrepancy in attitudes towards interracial
marriage. In this idea of gender equality, a clear dichotomy is observed; Swedes have the gender
equal ideal and have achieved it to a great extent, while in other cultures people are not as gender
equal as Swedes. The individuals and groups that are perceived as having other cultures,
especially Middle Eastern, are ascribed with the belief that they are patriarchic, do not respect
women and their rights. However the dichotomy that can be seen in the issue of gender equality
is not just a simple racialization, but also gendered. Many interview informants reason that
immigrant men and especially Middle Eastern men are not desirable for Swedish women because
of the religious differences and because they do not share the view of our gender equality. At the
same time, some interviewees reason that some Swedish men desire immigrant women especially
South/East Asian women because they are not gender equal and the relationship would entail less
conflicts and problems.
The idea of gender equality is used in arguing both being positive and negative about
interracial marriages. At the bottom of it is the stereotypes of persons who are perceived to have
different culture not sharing the gender equal view; moreover the gendered view of equality and
stereotypes towards Swedish men who intermarries comes to surface. As in Frankenberg’s study,
there seems to be a racial construction of masculinity and femininity (Frankenberg 1993). Even
though informants believed that gender equality is a Swedish value, they did not seem to question
9
the inconsequence between the Swedish gender lines. This indicates that the racialization of the
gender value is profound and it is frowned upon that immigrant women do not possess gender
equal ideal. There also is an underlying stereotype and stigmatization of Swedish men
intermarrying as not following the Swedish norms.
“Problems” of interracial marriages
The thing that I have problems with concerning interracial marriage is the cultural clash,
that I don’t have the energy to take the confrontation every time something happens.
Therefore I can be a bit traditional and rather want someone who comes from my culture.
(Interview with Helena)
It can be for example that my younger sister may meet somebody who beats her. I mean, it
doesn’t have to be an immigrant, it can be a Swede. It does not matter because you never
have guarantee ever. You don’t know and that’s why you should not be negative directly to
it [interracial relationship]. But I would probably react if she took home someone who is a
Muslim who acts oppressive towards women in an obvious way. (Interview with Anna)
When the question what do you think about or associate when you hear the word mixed marriage
is asked, it became obvious that the majority of interviewees seemed to share the idea that
interracial marriages are controversial and entail problems; through focusing on cultural
differences they implicitly explain their reservation towards having such a relationship. Instead of
stating that it becomes a problem for informants themselves, some projected the problem to the
welfare of the couple and children. Interview informants argued that couples who are involved in
intermarriage might need extra help because of the differences they might have, and they may
experience cultural clash. The idea of interracial marriages as a problem is oriented by a strong
idea that having an origin in another country than Sweden, or in the Western sphere, is equal to
social and religious differences that are difficult to bridge. By focusing on difficulties and
problems, and also on the cultural differences instead of the visible differences, a legitimate
color-blind argument against interracial marriages gets established. Focusing on the degree of
cultural differences of different racial groups and the ethnic hierarchy that exist in Swedish
society, the majority of interviewees naturalized the survey result that shows Europeans as the
most preferred and Middle Eastern as the least preferred for a marriage partner. Some informants
argued that the cultural conflict would be undeniable when raising children; there will be
fundamental differences in culture that cannot be bridged or compromised. Moreover the
10
uneasiness seems to appear from the notion that the children of mixed heritage will be ascribed
with differences. Showing reservation through explaining the anxiety towards the children
coincides with Frankenberg’s study which shows that mixed race children were portrayed as a
question to cultural belonging and mixed relationship were believed to be unstable (Frankenberg
1993).
Some informants explained their personal reservations about interracial relationships
using comparison with other social problems. Comparison of interracial marriages with social
problems also functions not only as a tool to justify and rationalize their opinions but also as a
modifier which make the interviewees’ opinions sound insignificant and unproblematic.
Furthermore, drawing a comparison between social problems and interracial marriage shifts the
focus from and minimize the issue of visible differences.
Avoiding the racial language and naming the unnamable through cultural differences - the
idea of race in color-blindness
When interviewees talked about intermarriages, conflicting views emerged: The view of
intermarriage from a color-blind perspective that does not see differences, and the view of
interracial marriage that focuses on differences. Several of the informants have articulated that
interracial marriages are the same as any other marriages, however, at the same time, with
predominant focus on the idea of culture and religion, interviewees expressed social and
religious differences, sometimes even visible differences that exist between the couples. This
contradiction of seeing and not seeing differences and explaining differences through culture is
also seen in Frankenberg’s study in which interviewees claimed that race does not matter or
should make no difference between people, yet they focused on cultural differences or economic
and sociopolitical differences (Frankenberg 1993:138). To claim that culture is the issue,
besides, is one of the ways of avoiding the racial language, as Bonilla-Silva asserts (Bonilla-Silva
2010).
As the problems of interracial marriages often were articulated as problems of cultural
differences, preference of a partner in a relationship was largely discussed through the notion of
cultural proximity, degree of similarities and differences. Looking closer to the idea of
differences, cultural differences and the notion that culture is something that is different from the
Swedish or the Western culture becomes prominent. Perception of differences and degree of
11
perceived differences are indicated by the fact that interviewees considered some intermarriages
to be not as problematic as others, for example a marriage between a Swede and a Dane.
When informants talked about Latin American and Central/East European, the central
argument lays on the perception of similarity, while for other racial groups, especially for Middle
Eastern, focus was on differences. The (non)racilization of Latin American and Central/East
Europeans by the discourse of cultural proximity and physical appearance is also something that
should not be ignored. This may indicate the notion of passing, and how Swedishness and
Europeanness is indicated by visible differences as some of the interviewees expressed.
Stereotypes are basis of assessments of how different they are to our values. Latin American and
Central/East Europeans are identified in a gradualist manner and perceived to be “like us” and
“part of us”, which partly explains the (non)racialization of the groups. Clearly, on the contrary,
the group Middle Eastern, and persons who are perceived to be Muslims, are ascribed with the
exclusivist stereotype, persons who are “absolutely different” and “culturally and morally
incompatible” (Hedetoft 1995). Middle Eastern men are especially ascribed with the idea
incompatibleness from the point of gender equality. The stereotype of Middle Eastern as
fundamentally different from Swedes may be explained by the group position and the perceived
threat the majority society feels towards the group. This stereotype of Middle Eastern connected
to the religious differences seemed to be profound, considering that there were interview
informants who specifically articulated that they cannot imagine having a relationship with
someone of Middle Eastern origin. Stereotypes of South/East Asian and African could be
observed as well, however to a lesser extent.
Being aware of the visible difference
The color-blind argument and explanations through culture was contested when interview
informants are to discuss attitudes towards adoptees. Informants all shared the opinion that if you
are an adoptee you are a Swede, and most of them could not find words to explain why adoptees
were not preferred as a marriage partner, as much as Swedes and other Europeans were. They
obviously had difficulties talking about the position of adoptees in Swedish society and the issue
of physical differences. The same concern over the physical differences arose when comparing
the attitudes towards South/East Asian and Central/East European; however in the case of
South/East Asian and Central/East European, interviewees could find an argument in cultural
12
differences not the visible differences or in some cases the different amount of contact and
familiarity, and could persist with their color-blind argument.
By focusing on cultural differences, the supposedly color-blind argument turns into a
color-conscious argument on several occasions. For example as mentioned earlier when concern
over the welfare of couples and children of mixed origin is discussed, several informants
expressed not only the cultural belonging of the children but also the uneasiness that the children
of mixed heritage will be ascribed with visible differences, marked by the question what will they
be; mixed children are identified with non-Swedishness both culturally and physically, rather
than being part of Swedishness. Questioning the cultural belonging of the children of mixed
parentage only strengthen the idea of culture as something fixed and passed on; together with the
question of what the children would look like and how they would be perceived in society, the
issue of mixed marriage and having children is centered around the idea of visible differences.
Another case where argument takes a clear color-conscious approach is when the preference of
Central/East European over South/East Asian is discussed. Central/East European marked with
social and cultural similarities are also attached with visible similarities; the preference of
Central/East European is stated in the name of Europeanness and Swedishness that South/East
Asian do not possess by a handful of interviewees. From this, a conflict in a color-blind
perspective that does not see differences and the racial ideas that are based on seeing differences
can be inferred.
Concluding remarks
This paper presented the summary of the preliminary findings from my qualitative study on
attitudes towards interracial marriage. I have argued that racial preferences in choosing a partner
is justified and explained in a color-blind manner by the notion of culture. Color-blind argument
focusing on individual choice, gender equality or problems that can arise in marriages can
effectively and rationally justify racial preference in a marriage partner. However color-blind
approach does not mean that differences are not seen and meaningfully communicated. Even
though the idea of color-blindness is persuasive in interviewees’ words, color-blindness does not
ignore race; different groups are seen with differences which contains meanings and feelings.
13
Works Cited
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism without Racists : Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of
Racial Inequality in the United States. 3rd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
2010.
Brekke, Jan-Paul, and Tordis Brochgrevink. Talking about Integration., 2007.
Cantle, Ted. Community Cohesion : A New Framework for Race and Diversity. Basingstoke
England ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
<http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0629/2005049673-b.html;
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0629/2005049673-d.html;
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0629/2005049673-t.html>.
Daynes, Sarah, and Orville Lee. Desire for Race. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Ehn, Billy. Vardagslivets Etnologi : Reflektioner Kring En Kulturvetenskap. Stockholm: Natur
och kultur, 1996.
Everett Cherrington Hughes. "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status." The American Journal of
Sociology 50.5 (1945): 353-9. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2771188>.
Frankenberg, Ruth. White Women, Race Matters : The Social Construction of Whiteness.
London: Routledge, 1993.
Gallagher, Charles A. "Color-Blind Privilege: The Social and Political Functions of Erasing the
Color Line in Post Race America." Race, Gender & Class 10.4 (2003): 1-17.
Goffman, Erving. Stigma :Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New ed.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1990.
Goldberg, David Theo. Racist Culture :Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1993.
Hedetoft, Ulf. "III National Allegory 2 the Image of the Other as a Sign of Identity: On the
Production of Differences." Signs of Nations : Studies in the Political Semiotics of Self and
Other in Contemporary European Nationalism. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1995. 699.
Lieberman, Robert C. ""the Storm Didn't Discriminate" Katrina and the Politics of Color
Blindness." Du Bois Review 3.1 (2006): 7-22.
Moran, Rachel F. Interracial Intimacy : The Regulation of Race & Romance. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2001. <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/uchi051/00011008.html;
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bios/uchi051/00011008.html;
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/uchi051/00011008.html>.
14
Norman, Karin. "Equality and Exclusion: "Racism" in a Swedish Town." Ethnos 69.2 (2004):
204. <http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/0014184042000212867>.
Root, Maria P. P. Love's Revolution: Interracial Marriage. Philadelphia, PA, US: Temple
University Press, 2001. PsycINFO.
Tigervall, Carina. "Samtal Med Adoptivföräldrar Om Diskriminering Och Motståndsstrategier."
Adoption Med Förhinder : Samtal Med Adopterade Och Adoptivföräldrar Om
Vardagsrasism Och Etnisk Identitet. Ed. Tobias Hübinette and Carina Tigervall. Tumba:
Mångkulturellt centrum, 2008. 165.
15