What Does “Black”Mean? Exploring the Epistemological Stranglehold of Racial Categorization *

DAVID L. BRUNSMA ** (Departmentof Sociology, University ofAlabama in Huntsville)

KERRY ANN ROCKQUEMORE (Departmentof Sociology, Boston College)

ABSTRACT The “check all that apply”approach to race onthe 2000 census has igniteda conceptual debateover the meaningand usefulness ofracial categories.This debateis most intense overthe category“ black”because of the historically unique way that blackness has beendeŽ ned. Though the livedreality ofmany peopleof color has changed overthe pastthree decades,we questionwhether the construct black has mirrored these changes andif “ black”remains avalidanalytic or discursive unittoday. While black racial groupmembership has historically beendeŽ ned using the one-droprule, we test the contemporarysalience ofthis classiŽcation norm byexamining racial identityconstruction amongmultiracial people.We Žndthat that the one-droprule has lost the powerto determine racial identity,while the meaningof black is becomingincreasingly multidimensional,varied, and

* The authorswish to thank RodneyCoates, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Robert Newby, and RainierSpencer fortheir comments onthis article. ** Direct allcorrespondence to: David L. Brunsma, Department ofSociology, University ofAlabamain Huntsville,Huntsville, AL 35899.E-mail: [email protected]

Critical Sociology, Volume 28,issue 1-2 Ó 2002Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden 102 Brunsma &Rockquemore ²

contextually speciŽc. Ultimately, we arguethat social,cultural andeconomic changes inpost-CivilRights America necessitate are-evaluationof the validityof black as social construct and re-assessment ofits’ continued use insocial science research. The2000 census was a watershedevent inhow we conceptualize “ race” inAmerica.The decisionto allow individuals to check multiplecategories when describingtheir racial identity has resultedin a statisticalquagmire inwhich there arenow 63 different racial categories (Grieco and Cassidy 2001).The “ check all thatapply” approach to race has alsoignited a conceptualdebate over the meaningand usefulness of racial categories. Thisdebate is most intense overthe category“ black”because of the historicallyunique way that blackness has been deŽned. 1 While many thoughtthe optionwould have little impacton the waythat black people wouldself-identify, both demographers and politicians were surprised by early Žndingsthat more blacks than expected identiŽed themselves as multiracialon theircensus forms. Nearly 1.8million people checked black and atleast oneother race as an indicationof their racial identity. 2 In additionto the statisticalproblems that have resultedfrom multiple race responses,recent changes inthe censushave set inmotion a validity crisisthat social scientists, politicians, and policy makers mustengage. We believe the outcomeof discussions concerning the validityof racial categoriesin general, andthe constructblack in particular,are at the heart ofunderstandingpresent and future issues of raceand identity in American society. The construct black has been usedin a variety ofcomplex and contradictoryways in social science literature.Black has been considered todescribe a commonset ofsocial experiences; however, itis not currently accuratein depicting a monolithicassemblage ofsimilar situations and circumstances.The constructblack historically has correspondedto issues ofskin colorthat somehow bind individuals into a collective body; however, the empiricalreality ofphenotype is one of increasingly striking variation andheterogeneity, not similitude and homogeneity. Black has been used tosignify a collective structurallocation typically associatedwith restricted

1 Althoughwe have great reservations about using terms suchas “ race,”“black,” “white” and“ biracial”because they represent socialconstructions as opposed to biologically based human categories,we recognize that their useis necessary for the purposeof ourargument. Wemust use standard racial terms in order toproblematize their meaning,validity and continueduse in socialscience research. Readersshould interpret theseterms as“ concepts” (in quotes)that arenot groundedin any empiricallydemonstrable, biological reality. 2 Multiplerace identiŽcation is most pronounced among young people, with 8percent ofblacks under 17choosing more than onerace ascompared to only 2percent ofthose 50and older. WhatDoes “Black”Mean 103 ² opportunities,economic disadvantage, and community disorganization; however,the opportunitystructure has alteredsigniŽ cantly overthe past three decadesand the socioeconomicstatus of black individuals is now quitevaried. Black has been describedas an expressionof a unique culturalspace with a particularcollection of values, norms,and strategies; however, whilemany whowrite and think aboutrace have rhetoricallyand theoreticallyarticulated black culture, concomitant structural, historical andmaterial changes have resultedin a widevariety ofcultural spaces. The constructblack, has alsobeen usedas an identity,a marker,a social category,a statement ofself-understanding, indeed a sociallyimposed parameterof the self; however, the terrainof identity is increasingly multifaceted, uid,and dynamic – anegotiatedterrain not encapsulated in onecolossal concept. While the lived reality ofmany peopleof color has changedsince the passageof Civil Rights legislation, we questionwhether the constructblack has mirroredthese changes.In otherwords, given the many waysthat black has been usedin the past,does its’ meaning remain avalidanalytic or discursive unit today? 3 Associologists, we consider concepts to be valid to the extent that the descriptionsof empirical reality they express arecorrect. Applying thisassumption to racial categorization begs the question:are the waysthat we understand “ black”re ective ofempirical reality? The answerto that question often depends on one’ s politics,theoretical orientation,discipline, profession, position in the classstructure, and/ or one’s race.Though various interest groups may justifythe existence of particularself-serving deŽnitions of what black means, membership in a collective bodyshould not alter consensus on the validityof a concept. Furthermore,the continueduse of invalid constructs in research, policy debates,and public discourse results in their reiŽ cation, affecting the very experiences ofthe individualsand groups that the originalconstruct has misrepresented.Is itpossible that the reiŽcation of black has reached sucha plateau?By focusingon black as a socialidentity, we will argue thatit has, necessitating a re-evaluationof the validityof black as a socialconstruct and re-assessment ofits’ continued use in social science research. Over the courseof U.S. history,many socialscientists have been primarilyconcerned with the question“ Who is black? ”makingit possible todesignate a populationthat could be tracked and studied. Framing the discoursein this way enabled an examinationof the underlyingracist

3 Thoughwe are framing the validitycrisis in racialcategorization in terms of contemporary socialand cultural change,we recognize that thesehave never been valid constructs andhave been challenged by sociologists from DuBois(1898) to Zuberi (2001). 104 Brunsma &Rockquemore ² assumptionsused to categorize individuals, while allowing for descriptive analyses ofhow a brutallymarginalized group of people experienced the socialworld. As researchers interested in process, structure, and identity (as well asfrom the standpointof validity concerns) we believe thatthe moresalient questiontoday is: What does blackmean ?The formerquestion, Who is black? ,invokes the powerof social context over individual identity construction.SpeciŽ cally, thisquestion and the answerto it (most notably inDavis1991), emphasize the powerof social structure and racist ideology inestablishingstrict parameters of identityoptions available toindividuals. ThroughoutU.S. history, racial identity has been legally, andlater culturallydetermined by the one-droprule, thereby givingindividuals with any knownblack ancestry no choice other than toidentify as black.While it isvaluable tounderstand that historically rooted, structurally parameterized identity“ options”re ect the socialrealities of individual’ s lives andtheir deŽned group memberships, dramatic reductions in structural barriers over the pastthree decadesnecessitate ashiftaway from how structure deŽ nes individualidentity (Who isblack?), towards an analysis ofhow closely individuals’racial self-understandings correspond to the unquestioned,all- encompassing,construct “ black”frequently used by social scientists (What doesblack mean?). Consideringthe historicalentrenchment ofthe one- droprule and recent research on racial identity among mixed-race people, wewishto press social scientists to fundamentally reassess boththe meaning and validity ofthe socialconstruct black in the faceof structuraland cultural changes inthe U.S. In orderto explore the validityof black as a socialidentity and its continuedusefulness as an analyticconstruct, it is necessary toŽrstconsider the ideologicalfoundation underlying black categorization in the U.S.After describingthe socio-historicaland economic roots of the one-droprule, wewill question its’ contemporary salience indetermining racial identity. Toanswer this question, we explore racial identity development among individualswith one black and one white parent. The in-betweenstatus ofmixed-race people provides a criticalcase totest the strengthof the one-droprule, the meaningof black as a socialidentity and the validityof blackas a socialconstruct. Finally, weconsider the implicationsof these Žndingson the continueduse of the constructblack for analytic purposes. The goalof this paper is to raise questions – uncomfortablequestions – aboutour use of racial categories. It is, most importantly, an effortto criticallyapproach: 1) the taken forgranted system ofracialcategorization; 2)the underlyingassumption that existing categoriesre ect a monolithic socialreality; and 3) the continuedusage of the constructblack in social science research. WhatDoes “Black”Mean 105 ² RacialClassiŽ cation and the One-Drop Rule The Americansystem ofracial stratiŽ cation did not emerge spontaneously, buthas deeproots in 18 th centuryEuropean classiŽ cation schemes (Jordan 1968;Omi and Winant 1994;Smedley 1999),the eugenicsmovement (Kevles 1985;Zuberi 2001) and the racializedhistory of imperialism (Bonilla-Silva2001; Omi and Winant 1994;Patterson 1982). Early colonists broughthierarchical understandings of human categorization to the “new world”and created social hierarchies based on their assessments ofsome individualsas sub-human. The system ofslavery exaggeratedexisting ideasof racial difference and the inferiorityof people of color, serving asa rationalizationof the exploitationof Africans in America ( Jordan 1968).That same racistideology continued, in mutated form, after the emancipationof slaves, guaranteeingtheir subordinate status for generations(Feagin 2000).Here, we brie y tracethe historyof the idea ofracial categorization to illustrate how the fallacy ofrace has been constructedby dominantgroups, socially reproduced over generations, and remainsembedded within the institutions,culture, and social consciousness ofAmerican society. It is this mythical idea of racial groups that necessitatedthe emergence ofthe one-droprule to deŽ ne whois black. Understandingthe historicalroots of this social process is essential to answeringthe questionof what black means inpost-CivilRights America. Racial ClassiŽcation The processof categorizinghuman beings into racialized types beganwith Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae (1735).His was a system ofnon-hierarchical categorization.Other systems followed,Ž rmly rootedin the classicalnotion ofthe GreatChain of Being thatordered all things(from the inanimateto God)( Jordan1968; Spencer 1999; Zuberi 2001). With rapidlyexpanding colonization,European systems ofclassiŽ cation interfaced with the Great Chainof Being andeventually elevated the statusof white Europeans, whilemarginalized others ( particularlyAfricans) were deemed one minute stepup from animals ( Jordan1968; Zuberi 2001). With the framework ofracial classiŽ cation schemes established,entire “ populations”of people wereneatly categorized.By extension, theircorrelate cultures, behaviors, andmoral values werealso hierarchically ordered. These racialhierarchies helped Europeansexplain the differencesthey encountered,while justifying the colonizationand enslavement ofAfricans and other non-European populations. The Enlightenment usheredin suspicion of existing classiŽcation systems. Thatsuspicion, however, was directed towards “ scientiŽcally testing”the existence ofracial types. The collective Europeanracial fantasythat differences, assumed in earliercosmological and philosophical 106 Brunsma &Rockquemore ² hierarchies,were, in fact, embedded in observable cultural, behavioral, andbiological differences resulted in the birthof social statistics. 4 Racialstatistics relied on the eugenicassumption that race is genetic, unchangeableand determinative of the superiorityof the whiterace (Zuberi2001). Intrinsically aligned with white supremacist ideology, racial classiŽcation schemes providedan epistemologicaltemplate for the “order ofthings.” When thisorder became challenged, the ideologyadapted toexplain anomalies,subvert contrary evidence, anddevelop speciŽ c mechanismsfor bringing deviations (e.g., mixed-race individuals) back into the explanatoryframework of racial classiŽ cation. The One-DropRule Europeansbrought their hegemonic ideology of racial difference and white supremacyto North America, creating hierarchical social structures and settingthe stagefor the uniquelyAmerican form of slavery toemerge. We focushere onthe deŽnition of black, because the rulesof inclusion in the “blackrace” are both different from any othergroup in the U.S.,and inseparablefrom the socialand economic institution of slavery. SpeciŽcally, blackgroup membership has been deŽned by a strictapplication of the one-droprule that deems individualswith any blackancestry whatsoever (regardlessof their physical appearance) as members of the blackrace. The resultis an inescapablepattern of hypodescent, where mixed-race individuals– nomatter how far removed from black ancestry – have had the same positionas the lower-statusparent group. Because slavery wasbuilt upon a strongwhite supremacist ideology ofracial separation, miscegenation was strictly prohibited. The fear underlyinganti-miscegenation attitudes was that black blood would taint the purityof the whiterace (Zack 1995).While whitespublicly denounced miscegenation,white men practicedit with regularity by raping their female slaves (Blassingame 1972). 5 The childrenof these unions,in

4 Closelyrelated to the increasedusage of racial statistics was the increasein census- taking.Utilizing existingracial classiŽ cation schemes was, from itsbeginnings, a political toolto control populations,individualize society, and give rise to a new ideaof “ identity.” Through the useof censuses, majority groups were ableto collect variousdemographic data,along with racialdata, further dividingand conquering their populations.By empirically substantiatingfalse beliefs in racialdifference, political, social, and material inequalitieswere legitimized.That thesecensuses rested on the fallaciousprocess of racially classifyingthe populationwas never questioned.Census-taking, as a culturally-determined, hegemonicprocess, provided the necessarybasis upon which tobuild racialized science andthe racializedsocialization of subsequent generations (Zuberi 2001). 5 The slave-owningmentality includeda beliefthat white maleslave owners had the right tosexually “ use”their blackfemale slaves at will. As aresult,the vastmajority of interracial sexconsisted of exploitativeunions between white maleslave owners and their blackfemale WhatDoes “Black”Mean 107 ² accordancewith the one-droprule, were considered black and, therefore, assets forthe slave master(Davis 1991).It was this economic incentive, groundedin white supremacist logic, that validated the one-droprule as the deŽnition of blackness inthe plantationdominated South. The CivilWar caused existing ideologicaldivisions over slavery tobecome even moredeeply entrenched andthe sociallyconstructed boundariesbetween blacks and whites were reinforced. At the war’s conclusion,Southern whites accepted the one-droprule and mulattos becameeven moreclosely alignedwith blacks due to their increased alienationfrom whites (Williamson 1980). This alliance resultedin full acceptanceof the one-droprule by the Americanpopulation (Davis 1991). Followingthe CivilWar, the JimCrow system ofsegregation enabled an unequivocaldistinction to be madebetween the socialworlds of blacksand whites.The passing of a multitudeof segregation and anti-miscegenation lawsin moststates necessitated a legal deŽnition of who, precisely, belonged inthe category“ black.”It was at this time in history that the one-drop rule,previously an informalnorm, was legally codiŽed (Magnum 1940). Theproduct of this was to make de jure apreviously de facto culturaland socialnorm that had, for generations, dictated interactions between the races.It is imperative to keep inmind that the codiŽcation of the one- droprule was necessary becauseof the reality ofmiscegenation in the contextof white supremacy. Given widespreadbelief in the biological realityof racial groups, the scientiŽc reiŽcation of racial classiŽ cation, and the legal codiŽcation of the one-droprule, the fallacy ofrace became furtherembedded in the nationalsocial consciousness. 6 Consideringthe one-droprule in its historical perspective, several patternsemerge. Firstand foremost, racial hierarchies have existed as slaves(Blassingame 1972). Sexual intercourse between white womenand black male slaves wasstrictly forbidden.This was largely due to problematic possibility that sucha sexual unioncould produce a mixed-race child.A mulattochild in awhite familywas scandalous andthreatened the entire ideologicallogic of the slavesystem. However, a mixed-race child in the slavequarters was not only toleratedbut was considered an economicasset (Davis 1991). 6 It isimportant tonote that whilethe ideaof race wasdeeply entrenched in oursocial andcultural consciousness,geneticists and biologists were dismantlingit. By WorldWar II,evidence from geneticistsfailed to support a biologicalbasis of racial categories. The eugenicsmovement, however,further reiŽed the ideaof race through aparadigmaticshift tocultural anddemographic racial differences. In other words,in light ofempiricalevidence that race isnot abiologicalreality, eugenicists shifted their emphasisto observing racial patterns in behavior,culture andintelligence. Using racial statistics from censusdata, they studiedthe racialbases of various deviant behaviors and cultural deŽciencies. The subtle shiftfrom documentingthe existenceof racial groups, to the observationof racial patterns in varioussocial behaviors and attitudes, was mirrored inthe socialsciences. 108 Brunsma &Rockquemore ² longas there has been contactbetween Europeans and Africans and they areŽ rmly rootedin an ideologyof white supremacy. In the U.S.,the deŽnition of who is blackhas consistentlysupported existing racistsystems ofstratiŽ cation. Despite the factthat the one-droprule has nobasis in biologicalreality, and has been continuallyused as an ideologicalweapon tosupportthe continuedexploitation of AfricanAmericans, it has enjoyed nearuniversal social acceptance. Sincethe passageof CivilRights legislation and the systematic(although nottotal) dismantling of structural barriers for people of color,the cultural spacehas emergedwhere the one-droprule has been challenged – particularlyamong young multiracial people. Biracialism (via parentage) isnot a newsocial phenomenon. What is neware their post-Civil Rights experiences ofrace. Such experiences have alloweda rejectionof the one- droprule and forced a reconsiderationof the mutualexclusivity ofracial categories.It is precisely because multiracial people’ s existence challenges the one-droprule, and because their lived experiences ofrace question the very validityof black as a socialconstruct, that we consider what black means inthe contextof their lives.

WhatDoes BlackMean? –AnEmpirical Investigation Over the pasttwo decades, an increasingnumber of social scientists have begunto study multiracial people as distinct from the blackpopulation. Priorto thisrecent trend, strict adherence to the one-droprule meant that researchersconsidered individuals with any blackancestry whatsoever as black.The new generation of researchers (many ofwhom themselves are multiracial)have accusedtheir predecessors of over-reliance on the one- droprule, questioning the salience ofthis norm as setting parameters for identityconstruction in the actuallives ofmixed-race people. In orderto investigate whetheror not the one-droprule continues to determine racial identiŽcation, we surveyed anon-randomsample of 177 college students withone black and one white parent in the Detroitmetropolitan area. If, in fact,the one-droprule retains a holdon theirracial identity development, wewould expect thatmost (if not all) wouldidentify as black. In order toprovide the opportunityfor their racial identity to vary (as multiracial researchershave suggestedit would), we allowed respondents to racially identifythemselves invarious other ways. 7

7 The actualsurvey question we used was: “ Which ofthe followingstatements best describeshow you feel about your racial identity? A)Iconsidermyself exclusively Black (or African-American); B)Isometimesconsider myself Black, sometimesmy other race,and sometimesbiracial depending on the circumstances; C)Iconsidermyself Biracial, but I experiencethe worldas a Black person;D) Iconsidermyself exclusively as Biracial (neither WhatDoes “Black”Mean 109 ²

Ourrespondents, whom we expected toidentify as black in accordance withthe one-droprule, actually chose between numerous different racial identities.These included:a borderidentity (exclusively biracial),a singularidentity (exclusively blackor exclusively white),a proteanidentity (sometimesblack, sometimes white, sometimes biracial), and a transcendent identity(no racial identity). Below we providea briefoverview of the each ofthe racialidentities that our respondents chose, delineating important syntheses of,and divergences from, previous literature. 8 The purposeof thisoverview is: 1) to provide an interpretiveperspective on the shifting natureof black as a racialcategory, 2) to further question the validityof the constructblack, and 3) tounderscorethe importanceof moving beyond the question“ whois black?” to “ whatdoes ‘ black’mean?” The Border Identity Over sixty percent(61.3%) of respondents in our sample described their racialidentity as neither exclusively blacknor white, but as a unique combinationof the two.For these respondents,the one-droprule is not salient indetermining racial identity, nor is black a personallymeaningful construct.Instead, “ black”is an intangiblequality that is blended with an equally intangible“ white”into a newhybrid category of social identity. We usethe term“ borderidentity” (Anzaldua 1987) because individuals choosingthis option describe their racial identity as biracial, meaning a separatecategory of existence altogether. The borderidentity is the racialidentity option that has been privileged bymultiracialactivists because (to them) itembodies the need forseparate categorization.They arguethat because individuals no longer understand themselves asone race, additional categories are necessary inorder to reect existing demographicand social realities. Many multiracialidentity researchershave alsoprivileged this identity option over the traditional singularblack identity (Brown 1990; Daniel 1996;Field 1996; Herring 1995;Poston 1990; Root 1990; Gibbs 1997). Root characterizes this new identityby the “abilityto hold, merge, and respect multiple perspectives simultaneously”(1996: xxi) whileDaniel refersto this option as a “blended identity”and describes it as one that “ resistsboth the dichotomization andhierarchical valuation of African American and European American culturaland racial differences” (1996: 133).

Black nor White);E) Iconsidermyself exclusively as my other race (not Black or biracial); F)Raceis meaningless, I donot believein racialidentities; and, G) Other.” 8 Fora more extensivediscussion of the methodologyand Ž ndings,see Rockquemore andBrunsma (2001). 110 Brunsma &Rockquemore ²

The Singular Identity Someof our respondents (16.7%) chose to racially self-identify with only oneof the racesin their background. They describedtheir racial identity as eitherexclusively black or exclusively white.For these individuals,biracial wasan accuratedescription of their ancestry but inaccurate in describing theirracial identity. If asked, respondents who chose the singularidentity readilyshared that they have oneblack and one white parent, however suchinformation did not determine their self-categorization and/ orgroup membership.As might be expected, more of these respondentsidentiŽ ed exclusively asblack (13.1% of the totalsample) thanwhite (3.6% of the totalsample). Thesingular black identity, while frequently cited by Civil Rights leadersin opposition to the additionof a multiracialcategory to the 2000census, has fallen outof favor with researchers studying mixed-race identityand is barely mentioned by multiracial activists as a legitimate identityoption. Root (1990) refers to the singularblack option as abiracial individual’s “acceptanceof the identitysociety assigns” (588) while Gibbs (1997)describes individuals having ablackidentity as “ overidentiŽed with theirblack parent” (332). Despite its disfavored status, the singularblack identitycontinues to be a meaningfulracial identity option for biracial individualsand evidence thatthe one-droprule does remain salient in identityconstruction for some multiracial people. Research documentingthe existence ofbiracialpeople who self-identify aswhite is scarce (Bowles 1993;Root 1990, 1996) and often a topicof greatdiscomfort for researchers. Due to the logicof the one-droprule, awhiteidentity is impossible because no amount of intermarriage or generationaldistance can remove an individualfrom the categoryblack. Someconsider the singularwhite identity to be equivalent to passing, yet weŽ ndthe whiteidentity choice to be a distinctphenomenon altogether. Passingimplies that an individualidentiŽ es asblack, yet pretendsto be whitefor various social and economic reasons. The singularwhite identity thatwe found among our respondents differs because the individualtruly considerstheir racial identity to be white (despite the factthat one of theirparents is black). The existence ofbiracial people who self-identify aswhite circumvents the one-droprule as a basisfor racial categorization andcreates further important questions about the meaningof black as a socialidentity. Are these individuals really blackfor categorization purposes becauseof their parentage? Is itequally legitimatefor a multiracialperson tochoose an exclusively whitevs. an exclusively blackidentity? And is there agenerationaland/ orphenotypic marking point when anindividual isno longer considered black in postCivil Rights America? WhatDoes “Black”Mean 111 ²

The ProteanIdentity Asmall groupof our respondents (4.8% of the totalsample) chose,what wecall,the proteanidentity option. SpeciŽ cally, they describedtheir racial identityas “ sometimesblack, sometimes white, and sometimes biracial dependingon the situation”. Forthem, black is meaningful as a social identity,yet itis but one of several racialidentities. In thisway, black loses mutualexclusivity andgains a situation-speciŽc uidityheretofore unknown.These respondentsemphasize their unique capacity to move betweenand among black, white and biracial identities, calling forward whateverracial identity may becontextually appropriate. Respondentschoosing the proteanidentity believe thathomogeneous groupsof blacks and whites have distinctcultural patterns that require differentsocial behaviors. They considerthemselves tobelong to multiple racialgroups because they areknowledgeable of various cultural ways of beingand are accepted as “insiders”by membersof variousracial groups. While somepeople might adjust their behavior todiffering circumstances, ourproteans adjust their identity tothese differentcircumstances. Thus, every socialsituation is assessed forwhat racial identity will ‘ work’and then thatparticular identity is presented. It is their ability to posses and presentmultiple racial identities that distinguishes the proteansfrom the previouslydescribed groups. 9 The Transcendent Identity One Žnal waythat our respondents understand their racial identity is byrefusing to have any racialidentity whatsoever. In otherwords, some respondents(13.1% of the totalsample) claimto have “transcended”race altogether.This approach to racial identity, while rarely mentioned in contemporarystudies, is grounded in Park’ s (1950)Marginal Man where, byvirtueof an in-betweenstatus, individuals intellectualize (as opposedto internalize)racial categorization. Failing to Ž twithinthe rigidlydeŽ ned groupingsof the existing system, transcendentsconsciously identify race asa masterstatus that is external totheir individual identity. While acknowledgingthe existence ofthe one-droprule, they understandblack only asa sociallyconstructed category that is utterly meaningless totheir individualsense ofself.

9 Althoughthe proteanstrategy has been implied in the existingliterature (Root1990, 1996;Stephan 1992),there islittle empiricalsubstantiation. Daniel (1996) uses the term “integrativeidentity” to describe malleability among biracial people, suggesting that some may havethe capacityto reference themselves simultaneously in blackand white communities whilefunctioning as an insiderwithin thesediffering social groups. 112 Brunsma &Rockquemore ²

Implications ofaMultidimensional Model ofRacial Identity OurŽ ndingsproblematize the validityof black as a socialidentity in several ways.First and foremost, in this small non-randomsample, we Žndnot one, butŽ ve differentracial identities (black, white, biracial, all ofthe above, andnone ofthe above).To our respondents, “ black”meant agreatmany differentthings. For some, black was co-opted into a newracial identity (the borderoption), for others it was discarded as meaningless (the singu- larwhite option), for others it wasonly meaningfulin speciŽ c contexts(the proteanoption), and for others it was simply a sociallyconstructed category thathad no personal signiŽ cance (the transcendentoption). It is these var- iedresponses that reafŽ rm the necessity ofasking whatdoes black mean? Moreimportantly, the Žndingsimply a subtle,yet fundamental,shift in the applicationof the one-droprule by our respondents and others in their socialenvironments. Because ourindividual identities are interactionally- validatedself understandings(Stone 1962), we can infer that each of these variedconstructions of racial identity have developedin social contextswhere they weredeemed legitimate and validated byothers. It is thisinteractional mechanism of validation that problematizes the validity ofblack because racial categorization ( particularlyas it is used for Civil Rightscompliance and monitoring) hinges onthe assumptionthat others categorizean individualas a memberof a distinctracial group. If, in this small groupof individuals, we found at least Žve differentunderstandings ofblack,then blackis ahighly uidconstruct. Overall, the Žndingsof this study,and much that lies inthe emergingliterature on biracial identity, failsto support the ideathat the one-droprule remains salient inthe way thatmultiracial people understand their own racial identity. In fact,our Žndingssuggest that the gripof racial classiŽ cation is loosening. Given thatidentity is a socialprocess, we contend that Americans are beginning toview multiracial people in increasingly complex and  uidways that problematizethe validityof racial categories as weknowthem.

WhatWill Black Mean inthe Future? The “check all thatapply” approach to racial identiŽ cation used in the 2000Census illustrates a seismicshift in our understanding of racial categoriesand racial group membership. In fact,the very idea of races asmutually exclusive, biologicallyreal categorizationswill never bethe same again.By allowingindividuals to mark more than one race, the CensusBureau has dealta deadlyblow to the ideathat “ pure”races exist, shatteringthe commonsensicalnotion of races as genetically distinct groupingsof human beings. More importantly, the newapproach casts seriousdoubt on the validityof racesas social identities, because it implies WhatDoes “Black”Mean 113 ² thatindividuals may nolonger view themselves inmutually exclusive ways and,at a deeperlevel, thatothers may notview them asmembers of distinctracial groups. We believe the movement awayfrom strictly deŽ ned, singularracial identities may bea shifttowards a morecontextualized understandingof the lived realities,experiential circumstances,social locations,and structural in uences operatingin oursociety. Achange inhowwe understandracial identity and group membership is,for some, long overdue and, for others, a bitpre-mature. Irrespective ofpolitics or personal opinions, the governmental decisionto allow the “check all thatapply” option has forcedsocial scientists, government bureaucrats,and pollsters to question the validityof racial constructs ingeneral, andblack in particular. What, infact, does black represent aftergenerations of racial mixing, inter-marriage, changing structural locations,within group diversiŽ cation, a uidcultural space, and increasing multidimensionalityin self-identiŽ cation? The assumptionunderlying the useof longstanding racial categorizations in research,legislation, and public discourseis that each representsa fundamentalcommonality, a monolithic groupexperience thatcaptures social, cultural, and phenotypic distinctions betweenU.S. citizens. However, the ongoinguse of racial categories as meaningfuldesignations stands in stark contrast to the factthat social scientistshave longagreed that racial groupings are not grounded in biologicalreality. Thoughsociologists know that race is not biologically real, we have continuedto use racial categorizations because of the beliefthat they rep- resent afundamental social reality(Omi and Winant 1994).Despite de- creasingstructural barriers since the passageof Civil Rights legislation, African-Americanscontinue to experience residentialsegregation, educa- tionalinequalities, and discrimination in mortgage lending, the criminal justicesystem, andthe labormarket. In additionto these institutionally rootedinequalities, race continues to affect the wayindividuals perceive each otherand their social interactions on adailybasis. As Dalmagepoint- edly states:“ whilethere may beone [human] race, only somemembers ofthat race can catch a cabon 42 nd street”(2000: 13). Her observa- tionillustrates the waythat biological fantasy becomessocial reality in the contextof daily interactions. It is this lingering social reality ofrace that has led many toargue that the censusracial categorizations are necessary andinherently meaningfuldesignations. In otherwords, black remains an unquestionedconstruct because it represents a profound social identity:it accuratelydescribes how individuals understand themselves andhow they areunderstood by others. The reality ofblackas representing a socialidentity must be called into questiondue to the factthat 1) the U.S.government no longer supports 114 Brunsma &Rockquemore ² the ideaof exclusive racialcategorization and 2) there exists agrowing proportionof the blackpopulation who no longer view themselves as black.We have demonstratedthat there areat least Žve differentracial identitiesamong people who (according to the one-droprule) are black. Given the multidimensionalnature of racial identity among mixed-race people,the newcensus data is even morealarming than at Ž rstglance. SpeciŽcally, ourrespondents indicated various identiŽ cation strategies for the census.The borderidentiŽ ers would be among those who indicated morethan onerace. However, the singularwhite identiŽ ers checked white, the singularblacks checked black,the proteanschecked whateverthey felt atthe momentand the transcendentsleft the questionblank. Therefore, we shouldbe aware that the censusdata (and estimates of the sizeof various populationsderived from it) are inherently awedbecause they failto take intoaccount the subjectiveelements ofidentity choice. Consideringincreasing cultural and demographic  uidityin ourunder- standingsof race can we, in fact,continue to assert with certainty that the constructblack is valid? In ourtheoretical and empirical models what does blackmeasure? What wouldit mean tosociological research to expand categorization?Is itpossible (or wise) to do away with reiŽ ed categories altogether?How can and how should sociologists adjust to more porous notionsof racial identity? Below we consider some of these important questions,with the hopethat their mere articulationwill energize discus- sionwithin the disciplineover the legitimacyand validity of ourcontinued relianceon racial categories for empirical analysis. What DoesBlack Measure? Despitethe factthat research on multiracialindividuals and the newcensus dataare pushing us all torethink racialclassiŽ cation and identity, the hegemonicsystems ofthe last300 years have notcompletely released their hold.The general societalconception of race is still oneof biologically, culturally,materially, and phenotypically rooted difference and distinction. The originalline ofresearch on the question Who is black wasimportant for understandingthe contextually boundnature of racial classiŽ cations and deŽnitions. The culminationof evidence andarguments that race is not basedin biological or ontologicalreality, however, has donelittle tochange the waysociologists talk aboutand conduct research using racial statistics. Socialscience has,over time, oscillated between various essentialist arguments.These argumentsspan biological (see Wiegman 1995),cul- tural(see Smedley 1999),evolutionary (see DarityJr. 1994; Hoffman 1896;Spencer 1885), assimilationist (Frazier 1957; Park 1950), behav- ioral(Myrdal 1944),and social constructionist (see Ferber1995; Lopez 1995)approaches to race. Currently, sociologists tend to favor the social WhatDoes “Black”Mean 115 ² constructionistperspective; however, even thosewho rely onthis explana- tionof race continue to operate according to an essentialist viewof race (Spencer1999; Zuberi 2001). According to Spencer:

: : : ifrace is asocial construction, ofwhat precisely is itconstructed ifnot the scientiŽcally invalidfalse consciousness ofbiological race? It is as vitally necessary toproblematize the social construction ofrace as itwas toquestion its scientiŽc construction. Many peoplebelieve erroneously in abiological conceptionof race, butit is critical tosee that even forthose peoplewho claim toeschew the biologicalconception in favorof a social one,the basis oftheir social construction view is an underlyingconception of biological race, whether acknowledgedconsciously ornot.This false consciousness serves tokeep Americans Žxatedon what arethought to be racial differences, exaggeratingand ultimately reifying such differences intoa so-called social reality.(1999: 37-38)

In the practiceof empirical social science, the socialcontructionist ap- proachallows researchers to remain uncritical of race as aconstruct,main- taintheir biological and essentialist viewof racialdifferences, and continue toaccept the invalidschemas ofracial classiŽ cation and categorization (Appiahand Gutman 1996). Race ingeneral, andblack/ non-blackin par- ticular,are used as “ controlvariables,” and, indeed, as just one in an ever-growingarray of causal variables for our statistical models of exceed- ingly complexsocial phenomena. We remain,for the mostpart, inattentive toeach andevery oneof these types ofexogenous variables – including them inmodels as part of anunquestionedroutine. Subsequently, the lan- guagethat we use to discuss the “effects”of “ variables”such as race in ourempirical models is a languagedeeply Žxated onthe notionsof race andracial difference that we, at least theoretically,eschew. There are sev- eral dimensionsof sociologists’ usage of racial concepts and statistics that deserve ourimmediate attention. First,we must reconsider and problematize the causallanguage used indiscussing “ raceeffects.” The startingplace is situated in sociologists’ confusionover causation and association (Zuberi 2001). As illustrated in ourŽ ndingson biracialindividuals, race is not an unalterablecharacteristic ofan individual.Historically, racial categories have been constructedfrom false,illogical, and mythical assumptions regarding the biological,cultural, andbehavioral bases of racial groups. If one assumes that race is an unalterablecharacteristics of individuals,then the bulkof researchon racial differencesand the “effectsof race” have been fundamentallymisguided. Zuberistates:

Race andgender as unalterablecharacteristics ofindividuals are not causal variablesin inferentialstatistical analysis. Statisticians have questionedand 116 Brunsma &Rockquemore ²

criticized the use ofsuch attributed– unalterableproperties of individuals – in inferentialstatistical models.Most social statisticians, however, continueto treatrace andsex asanindividualattribute in their inferentialmodels. Statistical modelsthat present raceas acause arereally statements ofassociation betweenthe racial classiŽcation and apredictoror explanatory variable across individuals in apopulation. To treatthese models as causal or inferential is aformof racial reasoning. (Zuberi2001: 129,emphasis inoriginal)

By failingto acknowledge the validityissues inherent inthe useof race as a“variable,”by viewingblackness, forexample, asan unalterablecharac- teristic,and, by assigning causal properties to race through interpretations ofstatistical relationships, sociologists have furtherreiŽ ed the essentialist notionof race. Even ifsocial scientists, when usingrace as a predictorin statistical models,can become more discerning in their causal language and work towardsa morecritical understanding of their own interpretations of the associationsobserved in data, there remainsthe assumption that race is aproxyfor other social, cultural, and behavioral traits. Any concerted attemptsto move awayfrom considering race as a cause mustalso include a criticalassessment ofthe assumptionsthat race stands as a proxy. Race, as a variable,must be placed within a socialcontext where its meaning resides. Asa proxy,race currently is associated with a wide and varying number of socialphenomena. Social researchers concerned about the validityand implicationsof theirresearch would do well tocease usingrace as aproxy forother associated causes in their models and begin measuring, directly, thoseother causes. Thereis also the persistentissue of “ controlling”for other variations instatistical modeling. Much of the researchon “ raceeffects” tries to “explain away”the effectof race (e.g., a dummyvariable for black, with whitesas the omittedcategory) through the additionof other variables tothe model.Typically, the differencesassumed to be “ caused”by the “blackdummy variable” are actually due, or so it is argued, to these new variables.While thisprocedure is understood as interpreting race as a cause,it continues to legitimate the useof essentialist racializedreasoning andlegitimate the useof methodologies that actually perpetuate the very problemswe seek toovercome through our research. For while black as aconstructmay pointto a reality,it consistently misses the mark,leaving researchersstuck in routine explanations and interpretations based on the usageof questionable concepts. Possiblythe morepoignant question is what does black not measure. It failsto measure how others identify an individualor how individuals are perceivedin society. This is no small mattergiven thatmany important usagesof racialdata assume that an individualdesignated as blackappears WhatDoes “Black”Mean 117 ² toothers, and is identiŽ ed by others, as black. Core substantive questions mustbe addressed as to how we can use census racial data in meaningful waysfor Civil Rights monitoring and compliance. For example, ifsomeone whoidentiŽ es asmultiracial, but looks black, experiences discrimination,is itbecause they wereassumed to be black or because they wereassumed tobe multiracial? Does the distinctionmatter? Can someone experience discriminationif they identifyas black, are multiracial by parentage, but appearwhite to others? And how do these same types ofquestions affect the waythat we measuredifferences between groups on variousdependent variablesof interest, how we categorize individuals who have parentsof differentraces for population estimates, and/ orwhat we do with people whoclaim three ormore racial identities? What Would ItMean To Expand Categorization and This IsDesirable? In responseto concernsabout the validityof black as a socialidentity, two possibilitiesexist. Indeed,both have been discussedin the literature– one workingwithin the existing illogicof racialclassiŽ cation, the otherpushing towardsthe erosionof the conceptof race altogether. The Žrstpossibility isto further expand existing racialcategories. The “check all thatapply” compromiseto the 2000census is an example ofefforts to reŽ ne the op- erationalizationof racial concepts, increase the validityof racialconstructs (by allowingmultidimensionality), and enable multiracialpopulations to be extractedfor separate analyses. Ifthe system ofracial classiŽ cation was ini- tially createdto provide compatible, non-duplicated, exchangeable racial dataamong federal agencies, then expandingcategories increases the de- mographicaccuracy of that data (at least interms of self-identiŽ cation). Increasingly complexracial designations may simplyrequire more reŽ ned statisticaltechniques and clearer bureaucratic guidelines for when toag- gregateand disaggregate the data. Anotherpossibility is to reassess the useand value ofracial categoriza- tionaltogether. Many have arguedthat the system iscollapsing under its ownillogical weight. If, in fact, racial categories are not biologically real, andare increasingly failing to be sociallymeaningful, then addingmore re- Žneddesignations only compoundsthe problem,as opposed to providing any solution.Appiah made this critique when he statedthat the “Mul- tiracialscheme, whichis meant tosolve anomalies,simply creates more anomaliesof its own, and that’ s becausethe fundamentalconcept – that youshould be ableto assign every Americanto one of three orfour races reliably– iscrazy.”(Wright 1994: 49). The re-assessment ofracial catego- rizationis most strongly advocated by proponents of antiracial philosophy (see Spencer1999) who seek toeliminate the illogical,hegemonic, false, andinvalid concept of race. Scholars urging an endto the ideaof race are,however, cautious in acknowledgingthat while race is afallacy,racism 118 Brunsma &Rockquemore ² isan empiricalreality thatcannot be ignored. To combat racism without the reiŽcation of invalid racial categories, Zuberi (2001) has arguedthat socialscientists must develop new ways of tracking discrimination, while refocusingempirical analyses toexamine the factors directly that we now assume race(as avariable)is a proxyfor (e.g., social class). Underlying this secondpossibility is the fundamentalconcern that the validityof blackas a socialconstruct has been severely diminished(if not mortally wounded) by the newly emergingracial identities re ected in the 2000census data. The longheld allegiance toone-drop rule seems tobe eroding in the context ofstructural,cultural and economic changes inAmerican society. Ultimately, the waythat we answer the question“ whatdoes black mean?”directly re ects the stateof racerelations in America. The factthat ourrigid understandings of race are slowly yielding to more  uidnotions ofgroup membership mirrors the awkwardposition of racial categories inthe newmillennium. They aresimultaneously real and unreal, both a biologicalfallacy andan increasinglycomplex social reality, differentiating individuals’opportunities and life chances,yet varying withingroups. Viewedthrough this lens, the “check all thatapply” option was a step forwardin acknowledging the constructednature of black as a social construct.The subsequent decision that multiracial responses would be collapsedback into the traditionalcategories for bureaucratic use is a step backward,albeit an acknowledgementof ourcontinued need toŽ ndother waysto monitor racial discrimination. This oscillation indicates a crisis, onethat begs a discussionof the meaningof racial categories and their placein our discipline. Amidstall these uncertainties,one thing remains clear – the “check all thatapply” directive on the 2000census was not unlike openingPandora’ s box.There simply is noclosing it and pretending it didnot happen. While the CensusBureau and various government agencies areleft todeal with the bureaucraticand statistical mess resultingfrom multiple race responses, sociologistsare left toconsiderthe statusof blackas a socialconstruct and the implicationsour answer has forfuture analyses. Given the existing populationtrends, the controversyover what black means, whether(or not)we continue to consider social problems through this lens, andthe politicalimplications of these decisionsloom large and show no signs of abating.

References

ANZALD UA, GLORIA 1987 Borderlands/LaFrontera: TheNew Mestiza .SanFrancisco: Spinsters/ Aunt Lute Foundation. WhatDoes “Black”Mean 119 ²

APPIAH, KWAME ANTHONY AND AMY GUTMAN 1996 Color Conscious: ThePolitical Morality of Race. Princeton: Princeton University Press. BLASSIN GAME, JOHN W. 1972 TheSlave Community: Plantation Lifein theAntebellum South .New York:Oxford University Press. BONILLA-SILVA, EDUARDO 2001 WhiteSupremacy and Racism in thePost-Civil Rights Era. Boulder:Lynne Rienner Publishers. BOWLES, DORCAS D. 1993“ Bi-racial Identity:Children Born toAfrican-American andWhite Couples.” Clinical Social Work Journal 21(4):417-428. BROWN, PHILIP M. 1990“ BiracialIdentity and Social Marginality.” Childand Adolescent Social Work Journal 7(4):319-337. BRUNSMA, DAVID L. 2001 Beyond Black:Biracial Identity in America .ThousandOaks: Sage. DALMAG E, HEATHER 2000 Trippingon theColor Line: Black-WhiteMultiracial Families in aRacially DividedWorld . New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press. DANIEL, G. REGINALD 1996“ Black andWhite Identityin the New Millennium:Unsevering the Tiesthat Bind,”in MariaRoot (ed.), TheMultiracial Experience: RacialBorders as theNew Frontier.ThousandOaks: Sage. DARITY, WILLIAM JR. 1994“ ManyRoads to Extinction: Early AEAEconomistsand the Black Disappearance Hypothesis.” History of Economics Review 21: 47-64. DAVIS, F. JAMES 1991 Whois Black:One Nation’ s DeŽnition .University Park, Pennsylvania:Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press. DU BOIS, W.E.B. 1899 ThePhiladelphia Negro: ASocial Study. Philadelphia:University ofPennsylvaniaPress. FEAGIN, JOE 2000 Racist America:Roots, Current Realities, &Future Reparations .New York:Routledge. FERBER, ABBY L. 1995“ Exploringthe SocialConstruction ofRace,” in NaomiZack (ed.), American MixedRace: The Culture of Microdiversity ,pp.155-167. Lanham, Md: Rowman and LittleŽeld. FIELD, LYNDA 1996“ PiecingTogether the Puzzle:Self-Concept andGroup Identity in Biracial Black/White Youth,”in MariaRoot (ed.), Racially MixedPeople in America . ThousandOaks: Sage. FRAZIER, E. FRANK LIN 1957 Raceand Culture Contacts in theModern World. Boston:Beacon Press. GIBBS, JEWELLE TAYLOR 1997“ BiracialAdolescents,” in JewelleTaylor-Gibbs and Larke-Nahme Huang(eds), Childrenof Color: Psychological Interventions withCulturally Diverse Youth. New York: Jossey-Bass. 120 Brunsma &Rockquemore ²

GRIECO, ELIZABETH M. AND RACHEL C. CASSIDY 2001“ Overviewof Raceand Hispanic Origin: 2000,” in U.S.Census BriefC2KBR/ 01-1. U.S.Bureau of the Census. HERRING, ROGER D. 1995“ DevelopingBiracial Ethnic Identity:A Reviewof the IncreasingDilemma.” Journal of Multicultural Counseling andDevelopment 23: 29-38. HOFFMAN, FREDERICK L. 1896“ RaceTraits and Tendencies of the American Negro.” Publications of theAmerican Economic Association 11(1,2, 3): 311-12. JORDAN, WINTHROP D. 1968 WhiteOver Black: American Attitudes Towardthe Negro, 1550-1812. New York:W.W. Norton. KEVLES, DANIEL 1985 In theName of Eugenics: Genetics andthe Uses of HumanHeredity. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press. LOPEZ, IAN F. HANEY 1995“ The SocialConstruction ofRace,” in Richard Delgado(ed.), Critical raceTheory: TheCutting Edge ,pp.191-203. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. MANGUM, CHARLES STAPLES JR. 1940 TheLegal Status of theNegro in theUnited States .Chapel Hill: University ofNorth CarolinaPress. MYRDAL, GUNNAR 1944 An AmericanDilemma: The Negro Problemand Modern Democracy. New York:Harper andBrothers. OMI, MICHAEL AND HAROLD WINAN T 1994 RacialFormation in theUnited States: From the1960s to the1990s . New York: Routledgeand Kegan Paul. PARK, ROBERT EZRA 1950 Raceand Culture .New York:Free Press. POSTON, W. CARLOS 1990“ The BiracialIdentity Development Model: A NeededAddition.” Journal of Counseling andDevelopment 69(2):152-155. ROCKQUEMORE, KERRY ANN 1999“ Between Black andWhite: Exploring the BiracialExperience.” Raceand Society 1(2):197-212. ROOT, MARIA 1990“ Resolving‘ Other’Status: Identity Development of Biracial Individuals.” Women and Therapy 9: 185-205. ROOT, MARIA 1996“ The MultiracialExperience: Racial Borders as SigniŽ cant Frontier in Race Relations,”in MariaRoot (ed.), TheMultiracial Experience: RacialBorders as theNew Frontier.ThousandOaks: Sage. SMEDLEY, AUDREY 1999 Racein North America:Origin andEvolution of aWorldview. 2nd ed.Boulder: Westview Press. SPENCER, HERBERT 1885 Principles of Sociology. New York:D. Appleton. WhatDoes “Black”Mean 121 ²

SPENCER, JON MICHAEL 1997 TheNew Colored People:The Mixed-Race Movement in America. New York:New York University Press. SPENCER, RAINIER 1999 Spurious Issues: Raceand Multiracial Identity Politics in theUnited States. Boulder,CO: WestviewPress. STEPHAN, COOKIE W. 1992“ Mixed-HeritageIndividuals: Ethnic Identityand Trait Characteristics,”in Maria Root (ed.), Racially MixedPeople in America .Newbury Park, CA:Sage. STONE, GREGORY 1962“ Appearanceand the Self,”in A.M.Rose(ed.), HumanBehavior and Social Processes . Boston:Houghton Mif in. WIEGMAN, ROBYN 1995 AmericanAnatomies: Theorizing Raceand Gender. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press. WRIGHT, LAW RENCE 1994“ OneDrop of Blood.” TheNew Yorker 79(22):46-55. ZACK , NAOMI 1995“ MixedBack andWhite Raceand Public Policy.” Hypatia 10(1):120-132. ZUBERI, TUKUFU 2001 ThickerThan Blood: How RacialStatistics Lie. Minneapolis,MN: University of MinnesotaPress.