Written by a psychologist in private practice (and an interracial marriage partner with children), the primary focus of this study was to highlight the unique psychological and social needs of white/black interracial individuals within the context of a racist society. Not only have these needs not been directly addressed, but they have been ignored and neglected or looked at through the cultural and racial biases of “uniracial” (monoracial) therapists. As background, Brown provides a brief history of racial mixture in the U.S and examines the damage white social scientists did to the image of mixed race people via their support of eugenics and their embrace and active promulgation of the “tragic mullato” myth. Constructed over a century ago, this myth has infected the American mindset and still negatively affects first and multi generational biracial and triracial people today by stigmatizing them as sufferers of an inherent pathology. The author challenges all social scientists to re-examine their premises, prejudices, and “cultural encapsulation” before attempting to study or treat people of mixed race. Brown is careful to describe the goals, sampling limitations and errors, social science instruments, terminology, etc. of her own study as well as to note the need for additional studies by other social scientists. But despite the technical explanations of her approach, this is not a difficult book for the lay person and should prove valuable reading for interracial family members.

As a psychologist her chief concern is the reality in which the individual lives and the mental health and well-being of that individual. However, having said that, she maintains that despite the lived reality when it comes to being “officially” counted these individuals should be counted as “black.” Her reasons are the same as they are whenever anyone is in favor of that position, i.e. fighting institutionalized racism and discrimination, ensuring civil rights, funding based on numbers, etc. Brown understands that an interracial person chooses his or her personal and public identities and that psychological comfort and self determination are of the utmost importance. But she maintains that for classification purposes a white identity is “taboo” and a mixed identity is personal and/or social but not “official” because a racial caste system still exists in the U.S. In her view, since the system exists it should be dealt with “pragmatically.” She doesn’t address the fact that her views on classification do nothing to challenge the system. She also has a very positive, if perhaps somewhat naïve, attitude toward the 2000 Census. Despite quoting representatives of the Multiracial Movement who criticized the Census for its ultimate reduction to hypodescent, Brown still thinks that being able to check multiple boxes “will be enormously beneficial” for the interracial individual. It is too soon to determine whether her assertion is correct. However, the thinking person cannot help but be struck by the paradox of how the very tool (racial classification) that has been used to discriminate and exclude the entire non-white population from being fully enfranchised is now (according to social scientists, census officials, and civil rights organizations) supposed to function in reverse.

Regardless of her conclusions about “racial classification,” Brown’s study is still worthwhile reading for several reasons. First and foremost it dispels racist assumptions regarding racial identity formation in white/black individuals. Her findings demonstrate that the formation of a racial identity is no less complex than any other aspect of the self that contributes to the process of total identity formation. That is, it is influenced by many factors and despite social coercion it cannot be assumed, presumed, nor predicted. Moreover, the interracial individual is no more likely than any other individual to develop pathological characteristics. Depending on personality, family circumstances, key experiences, cultural exposure, sense of community, etc. an individual may form a mixed, white, or a black identity and that identity may change or remain stable over time or may alter from one situation to another. Second, the formation of a black racial identity is neither easier nor necessarily “better” for an interracial person than forming a mixed or a white identity. Indeed social pressure and attempts to co-opt the individual may accomplish the opposite of their intent. Parental pressure to identify with only one race did not have positive results because it did not confirm the reality of the child’s experience. Parents who dealt openly and directly with their child’s mixture were more positively perceived by the child, contributed directly to the child’s healthy ego development, and on the whole had better relationships with their children than those who pushed the child toward one race or the other. Third, Brown dispels the fallacy that predominately black neighborhoods and schools are any more welcoming, healthy, or positive environments for interracial children. In fact, in both predominately white or black communities interracial children encountered the same negative experiences: verbal taunts, physical menace or actual attack, ostracism, and isolation.

Not surprisingly, the author concludes that interracial children fare far better in interracial communities and schools where they can socialize with other interracial children and families. Additionally, they should have equal exposure to each parent's family and/or culture and are more likely to have conflicts when exposure to one side or the other is lacking. These conflicts are caused by black and white racial prejudice and the individual's resolution or failure to resolve these conflicts are well presented and explored in her interviews. Lack of community and of a sense of belonging and fellowship is all too common a negative thread in the interracial experience. In Appendix C of this work the author provides a list of multiracial organizations by state that can be helpful to many interracial families seeking relief from “uniracial” pressure.

The interplay of phenotype, social attitudes, self perception, racial labeling, and self-identification are also discussed. This is extremely important because it demonstrates how U.S. society uses phenotype to force people into categories without recognizing individual experience or preference. Indeed, appearance is used as the determinant of racial identity and racial identity is in turn presumed to determine cultural affiliation. In actual fact society’s presumptions about an individual based on his or her phenotype are often totally at odds with that person's life experience, self-perception, and self-identification. This disparity can be a source of internal conflict for the individual. “Uniracials” will then point to the conflict as evidence of instability. In other words a classic blaming the victim attitude. The “uniracial” mindset cannot tolerate the physical ambiguity and/or social fluidity of the interracial person and therefore attempts are made to punish and police that individual. Although she doesn’t go into much detail, Brown notes that this type of presumptuous thinking is beginning to break down due to the “browning of America.” As many others have begun to note, the U.S. A. (whose socioeconomic structure has been so organized and driven by racialism and racism) has allowed Hispanics to identify as a cultural and linguistic group whose members may be of any race or racial mixture. As with other mixed people Hispanics may change their racial self-identification over time or from one situation to another. The contrast that this makes with the rigid and specious concept of race in the U.S. makes it utterly clear that the old model of “race” is becoming harder and harder to explain and maintain. It's becoming totally obvious to more and more people that the imperative behind the denial of mixedness has been and still is driven by the need to deny relatedness and all that it implies. If all multiracials were officially recognized then the “purity” myth would disintegrate. Then, what would ultimately happen to the practice of using “race” to ensure economic, cultural, and social inclusion or exclusion?

It has been 33 years since Loving vs. Virginia with approximately a generation between that ruling and the advent of the Multiracial Movement. It is often noted that that generation included a “biracial baby boom.” Without laws to force them into it (and with the support of local multiracial organizations) some “white” parents today are not willing to submit to the kind of antiquated racial classification that requires them to relinquish their relatedness to their white/black children by identifying them as “black.” It isn’t any wonder then that Brown has found that some white parents, especially mothers, are beginning to identify their children as biracial. Not only does this satisfy the psychological need children have to identify with both parents but also facilitates a greater degree of enculturation and inclusion into the dominant culture.

©2001 all rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without
the express written consent of Interracial Voice.