* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Riley Collins - ross.mayfirst.org
Survey
Document related concepts
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
False consensus effect wikipedia , lookup
System justification wikipedia , lookup
Expressions of dominance wikipedia , lookup
Communication in small groups wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
In-group favoritism wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of the family wikipedia , lookup
Self-categorization theory wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Social dilemma wikipedia , lookup
Interpersonal relationship wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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.