Download Riley Collins - ross.mayfirst.org

Riley Collins
November 23, 2009
Social Dominance Theory and Alienation Theory: Opposition to Interracial Dating
According to Schoepflin, the frequency of interracial dating is a good
measure of race relations, as “these relationships offer a useful lens for gauging
social distance between racial groups”(2009). Interracial romantic relationships
are a very meaningful relationship between races, and indicate more than just
friendship. However, studies on interracial relations in general and especially
those on college campuses indicate that these relationships are not frequent. A
look at past studies on interracial relationships shows there is a common theme
in their analysis to the barriers to interracial dating. Yang, Sidanius and Pratto
explain that Euro-Americans have the highest social status, followed by Asians,
Hispanics, and finally African Americans (1998). This is crucial in our
understanding of opposition to interracial relationships because this racial
hierarchy means that the reasons for the lack of interracial dating differ according
to ones race. As wites hold most societal power, their feelings regarding
meaningful relationships with those of another race can be understood through
social dominance theory. Yet the attitudes of Asians, Hispanics and African
Americans toward interracial dating cannot be explained through the same
theoretical framework, because that would indicate that individuals of these races
would be more inclined to date interracially to “climb” the status latter of society.
On the contrary, they show equal aversion to interracial dating, which can be
attributed to the theory of alienation.
Social interaction theory is a lens through which discrimination and prejudice can
be explained. The theory suggests that these forces are manifestations of the
group-based hierarchies that humans naturally form. The hierarchies are
naturally maintained by laws and policies by those in power in order to
perpetuate the system of advantages they receive through the hierarchy (Yang,
Sidanius and Pratto, 1998). The major acting force of social dominance theory is
social dominance orientation, which is based on that desire of higher status
groups to maintain and perpetuate social hierarchy through social separation of
groups (Yancey, 2009). Individuals with hierarchical power will be more inclined
to partake in relationships that maintain the dominance relationship between the
groups.
The social dominance theory, then, can be utilized in order to understand White
feelings of aversion to interracial dating. Yang, Sidanius and Pratto examined
attitudes toward interracial marriage using social dominance orientation as their
theoretical framework. They argue that many beliefs, attitudes and social roles
are necessary to support the dominance relationships in social groups, and
attitudes toward interracial relationships are a major component of these beliefs.
They write, “For instance, among members of high-status groups, it is assumed
that part of the opposition to interracial marriage is motivated by the desire to
maintain a hierarchical group boundary between high- and low-status
groups”(1998) and then, “Because intermarriage between groups of significantly
different levels of social status can be regarded as a "social leveling" practice,
there is strong reason to expect that resistance to intergroup marriage would be
correlated with one's degree of social dominance orientation”(1998). They
indicate that a greater desire toward maintaining the hierarchical group relations
will lead to greater opposition to interracial relations.
Although Yancey ultimately disproves social dominance theory as an explanation
for African American feelings toward interracial dating, using African American
alienation as a theoretical framework instead, his article provides evidence for
social dominance theory as a motive for Caucasian attitudes. He focuses on the
relationship between African Americans and Caucasians but his findings can be
generalized to all races because the hierarchy applies to everyone in society,
and whites remain consistently at the top. He explains, through studying online
dating sites, that there is “evidence of social dominance orientation with research
suggesting that higher status groups are less willing to become romantically
involved with lower status groups because such involvement produces an
equality challenging the hierarchy that benefits higher status groups”(DATE). He
argues that the relationships between whites and blacks are avoided by whites
because they would lead to equality, which would take away from the benefits
whites receive from their higher social status. Lalonde, Giguére, Fontaine and
Smith conducted a similar study based off of Yancey’s, incorporating views on
adoption, using the same theoretical framework of social dominance theory. They
support Yancey’s views, noting that according to social dominance theory, whites
do not support hierarchy-attenuating beliefs like interracial dating and
relationships (2007).
Schoepflin, too, supports social dominance theory as a theoretical framework for
understanding white views on interracial dating, although not as explicitly. He
identifies white privilege to explain his white (female) interviewees that did not
grasp the importance of the issue of interracial dating, and affront to white male
power to explain blatant opposition. Both fall under social dominance theory,
though, because white privilege is a repercussion of the hierarchical system, and
affront to white male power as a reason for opposition to interracial dating is a
way of maintaining that social status. He notes that one white woman dating a
black male heard comments from male friends like “Once you go black, you
never come back” or “How's your black friend?”(2009). He explains these
reactions by noting, "Interracial sexuality is an affront to white male power, more
specifically, an affront to white male power over white women. It is a threat to
unrestricted access of white males to white women"(2009). Again, the
advancement of people of color is perceived as a direct affront to whites.
Finally, two further studies on interracial dating used different theoretical
frameworks that can be interpreted to support social dominance theory. Miller,
Olson and Fazio used evolutionary and social structural explanations in looking
at reactions to interracial dating (2004). Ultimately, they determined that the
social structural explanation is most effective because it accounts for reactions
from both family members and friends. The social structural explanation
highlights the way that roles are socially constructed in our society. Their
explanation of the way genders are socialized to fill roles that are then
perpetuated can be related to the racial hierarchy, which is a major component of
social dominance theory. Race is simply a social construct, and those of different
races are socialized to fill roles that will perpetuate the hierarchy. Kreager
provides depth to social dominance theory as well in his analysis of the
relationship between peer trouble at school and interracial relations. The
theoretical framework he uses to explore this topic is social identity theory, when
people favorably evaluate their own group in relation to another. He explains,
“This process of differentiation results in feelings of superiority for "in-group"
members and less favorable evaluations of those in "out-groups”(2008). People
of color fall into this “out-group,” while Caucasians in the “in-group” look down on
those in less favorable groups in order to boost their own identity. Interracial
dating threatens the superiority of the “in-group” and improves permeability
between the groups, as Kreager explains: “Border crossing challenges
established perceptions of group superiority or group distinction. Interracial
romantic relationships have historically fallen in this category. Whites may
perceive such relationships as endangering white privilege…”(2008). Social
identity theory allows for the hierarchy to be maintained, as is the goal of social
dominance theory.
Social dominance theory, however, cannot be the lens with which we examine
reasons that many people of color look unfavorably upon interracial dating. If
social dominance theory were to be in effect, Blacks, Asian-Americans,
Hispanics and those of other races would presumably be more interested in
dating those with higher societal status than themselves in order to climb the
power ladder of society and break down the hierarchy. On the contrary, Yancey’s
data shows that people of all races prefer a partner of their own race over
another. Although some studies such as Fang, Sidanius and Pratto’s look at
interracial marriage do provide evidence for social dominance theory for those of
all races, the studies measure support of interracial marriage in general, as
opposed to the personal racial preferences of the individuals. Therefore, it is not
social dominance but what Yancey calls “African American alienation theory,” or
simply alienation theory to apply to all individuals of color, that can be used as a
theoretical framework to understand their opposition to interracial dating.
Yancey explains that it was the artificial separation and distinguishing of the
different groups that originally lead to their alienation. He asserts, “Individuals
who live in marginal social spaces do not have commitment to the current social
order and are "alienated" from values and concerns of those in the mainstream.
Our racialized society has created a situation in which people of color are
vulnerable to alienation”(2009). He continues that this alienation meant that
people of color were more likely to be rejected by society, which influenced them
to stay within their own group and self-segregate. Because they cannot trust the
larger society, people of color come to highly value loyalty and reject the
mainstream culture, which extends to interracial dating: “Previous research
suggests a Eurocentric bias in evaluation of physical beauty…The distinct
alienation African Americans experience likely leads to a comparatively lower
level of trust of majority group members as romantic partners”(2009). It is
important that people of color do not feel like they are viewed as beautiful by
mainstream society, and this alienation is what leads to their own rejection of
white people as partners.
Childs, too, provides support for alienation theory although she does not explicitly
name it as her theoretical framework. She sums up her results by stating, “The
collective opposition to interracial relationships is not based in the belief that
whites are inferior or undesirable, but rather it is based on white racism, Black
internalization of racism, and ulterior motives”(2005). This explanation she
provides for black opposition to interracial dating supports alienation theory, as
she points out it is the reaction of blacks to white racism that leads to their
rejection of intimate or romantic relationships. One woman she interviewed said,
“If whites still think you are inferior, why would I or any Black person want to be
with one?”(2005). Many of the women went on to discuss beauty standards and
how women of color do not fall into the category of beautiful for many white men.
“The essence of what it means to be feminine is equated with white. Under
these feminine norms African American women can never be as beautiful as
white
women because they never become white…They [women in study] discussed
how the majority of white men do not find Black women attractive or acceptable
as mates”(2005). Attractiveness plays a large part in what we find important in
dating, and because our society has a European notions of beauty, women of
color are not regarded as highly by some. Therefore, they reject the mainstream
society, as Yancey suggested.
Finally, many of the interviews Schoepflin provides support alienation theory.
Many of the black women Schoepflin talks to express beliefs that white women
do not have genuine interest in black men they date, but rather fascination or
curiosity due to their race. “They're not used to seeing blacks, and they've heard
stories and myths about black men. So when they get here, they're just so
curious and they just wanna know how it is to be with a black man”(2009). The
black women assume white women are racist or do not have genuine motives in
dating men of a different race. Further, the women of color echo the sentiment in
Childs’ study that white men do not find them attractive. “I have white males that
are friendly to me, but they would not approach me. I don't understand why. Are
they intimidated by me? Are they afraid of what their friends or the campus may
say about them?”(2009). Again, the notion of American, white beauty has created
a standard that women of color do not fit into. These feelings of isolation and
distrust for the mainstream culture lead people of color to reject the hierarchical
structure and develop close communal bonds with one another.
In order to understand and conceptualize the forces that work against interracial
dating, it is important to distinguish between the reasons of those with power and
those without. Those with social status, namely white people, shy away from
interracial dating because it threatens the hierarchical structure that provides
them with power in what is known as social dominance theory. People of color
who have less authority and influence reject the mainstream white culture that
has snubbed them and turn to their own race for romantic relations. Childs
quotes Collins in determining how to move forward: “Moving through this pain
requires more than blaming…It demands changing the ‘circumstances that
create the pain’” (2000). Opposition to interracial relationships is not a matter that
can be simply attributed to “attraction.” It is necessary to look at the structural
components and the forces behind our choice of partner to begin to change the
culture of rejection, isolation and hierarchical power.
Riley Collins
November 23, 2009
Works Cited
Schoepflin, T. (2009). Perspectives of interracial dating at a predominantly white
school. Sociological Spectrum, 29(3), 346-370.
Yancey, G. (2009). Crossracial differences in the racial preferences of potential
dating partners: A test of the alienation of African Americans and social
dominance orientation. The Sociological Quarterly, 50( 1),121-143.
Kreager, D. (2008). Guarded borders: Adolescent interracial romance and peer
trouble at school. Social Forces, 87(2), 887-910.
Childs, E. (2005). Looking behind the stereotypes of the "angry black woman":
An exploration of black women's response to interracial relationships. Gender &
Society, 19(4), 544-561.
Mill, S., Olson, M., Russell, F. (2004). Perceived reactions to interracial romantic
relationships: When race is used as a cue to status. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 354-370.
Lalonde, R., Giguére, B., Fontaine, M., Smith, A. (2007). Social dominance
orientation and ideological asymmetry in relation to interracial dating and
transracial adoption in Canada. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 559.
Fang, C., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F. (1998). Romance across the social status
continuum. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(2), 290-305.