JOURNAL
ISSUE 4
2001/2002
Toyin
Okitikpi
Brunel University
London, England
Communicating With Children of Interracial/Interethnic Parentage
Abstract Children of interracial/interethnic parentage are
increasing in number throughout Europe yet there has been
a wall of silence about how to work with such children. In
this discussion the aim is not only to encourage a dialogue
about children of interracial/interethnic relationships but
also to urge a development of a better understanding of the
inner and outer world of such children. The aim is also to
highlight and analyse the different issues that welfare professionals
need to take into consideration when working with the children.
I shall suggest that there is a need to give greater credence
to the way people communicate with the children because what
is communicated and how it is communicated could affect how
the children relate to others, how they develop intellectually,
emotionally and psychologically and how they develop their
sense of identity. Introduction There is a great deal of evidence
to support the claim that there is a growing number of children
in Europe born of relationships in which the parents are from
different racial, cultural and ethnic backgrounds (Robinson,
1999; Owusu-Bempah and Howitt, 2000). In countries in Europe
where there is a relative peace between the different ethnic
groups it is still the case that children born from relationships
between the indigenous majority population and the minority
population often face, at best, inquisitiveness and, at worst,
hostilities from significant others and also from strangers.
Throughout the troubles in Northern Ireland there has been
very little reporting or research into the experiences of
families whose relationship cuts across the religious divide.
Similarly, in the much reported Balkan War, there was very
little coverage of the turmoil that the war must have brought
into families where one partner is a Kosova Serb and the other
a Kosova Albanian. There appears to have been very little
discussion about how such families make sense of their world
and how the children relate to children from mono-ethnic relationships.
What happens to interethnic families during such crises and
are there concerns about the children's sense of identity
and where they belong? In other words, how are the children
and their families viewed? How are they identified by significant
others and strangers? To which ethnic groups do they belong
and, importantly, which ethnic group can claim their allegiance?
Unlike the dearth of data from the Balkans and many of the
Eastern European countries, the countries in the West have
had a longer period to explore these issues in some depth
and to consider the implications, not just for the children
and their families, but also in social welfare policy and
practice terms (Kannan, 1973; Benson, 1992; Small, 1986; Barn,
1999). Also, unlike the Eastern European countries, the countries
in the West are less concerned about interethnic relationships,
rather their focus is on interracial issues and their ramifications
for society. To help focus the discussion I shall be exploring
the British experience but urging a wider extrapolation of
the ideas and discussion presented. In other words, although
the data and arguments presented are interracial in their
orientation, the issues raised, the arguments presented and
the ideas highlighted are of relevance and are applicable
to children and families from interethnic relationships. The
British Experience In Britain, the number of children from
families where one parent is black African or African Caribbean
and the other parent is white has increased to such a level
that in many areas in the UK (London, the midlands, Wales
and Yorkshire), they constitute quite a substantial number
within the community. Younge (1997) observed that there is
an increasing number of Caribbean children who have one white
parent. Similarly, a Policy Study Institute study (1997) on
multiracial Britain also supports Younge's observation that
two out of five (39 percent) of the children studied had one
Caribbean parent and one white parent. Yet despite their growing
numbers, welfare professionals and commentators often view
the children as "lacking" in some way and that their
interest would be best served by being nurtured in an environment
that takes account of only one part of their identity. In
essence, what is being suggested is that wherever possible,
children of interracial parentage should be encouraged to
view themselves as non-white and helped to develop their black
identity. At the heart of this view is the premise that children
of interracial parentage are, for all intent and purpose,
black and any other suggested identity would indicate identity
"confusion" and foster "self-hatred."
Tizard and Phoenix's study highlighted that indeed some children
had problems associated with racial identity. As they commented:
"Although only a minority of the mixed-parentage sample
experienced problems with their racial identity, the proportion
that did so was twice as large as it was in the case of those
with two parents. Their problems were those that have always
been recognised for people of mixed parentage: a feeling of
being different, a feeling of being torn between two sets
of competing loyalties and in some cases the experience of
hostility from black children, as well as white" (Tizard
and Phoenix, 1993: 162). But as Owusu-Bempah and Howitt (2000)
cautioned: "This however should not encourage anxieties
that these children desperately need help, since balancing
competing loyalties is a common social experience which needs
to be negotiated and managed in most instances. Alternatively,
the feeling of being 'different' and the experience of split
loyalties are at least partly due to the hostility from both
communities, rather than being an intrinsic aspect of the
children's personality" (Owusu-Bempah and Howitt, 2000:
149). And they continued, "The problem lies with both
black and white communities, children and adults, including
professionals who seem unwilling to accept similarities in
matters of race, and not with individual children" (ibid).
Confusing the Mix It is evident when reading the work of Banks
(1998), Barn (1993) and Prevatt-Goldstein (1999) that they
all work from the premise that children of mixed parentage
are black irrespective of how the children may view themselves.
In taking this as their starting point they further fuel the
confusion and uncertainties that exist as to how to classify
the children and whether they would best be served under a
black identity or recognised as a group in their own right.
It is evident that the current classification of children
of mixed parentage is very much based on the one-drop rule.
It was highlighted that: "The manifestation of the one-drop
rule through the categorisation of mixed parentage children
as black and the subsequent racist attitudes and behaviour
towards them is the main reason put forward by those who believe
that mixed parentage children must take on the black identity
as their true and only identity" (Okitikpi, 1999: 399).
The preoccupation with how to identify the children has, of
course, not developed out of a vacuum but from genuine desire
to accommodate a group of people whom white society had deemed
non-white as a result of the underlying principle of the "one-drop"
rule. According to the rationale of the "rule,"
one drop of black blood automatically renders a child non-white,
and being non-white thus renders the child "black"
(Root, 1992; Okitikpi, 1999b). As a result of the one-drop
rule and the subsequent negative and excluding reactions of
society towards children of mixed parentage, it was believed
by many commentators that the natural home of children of
mixed parentage is within the black fold. A view illustrated
by Small (1986) said: "The concept of mixed race, which
has become a part of conventional social work language, is
misleading because it causes confusion in the minds of trans-racial
adopters. It can lead them to believe that such children are
racially distinct from other Blacks. Consequently, they may
neglect the child's needs to develop a balanced racial identity
and thereby a well integrated personality. The term 'mixed
race' should therefore not be used by administrators or professionals,
and should be discouraged amongst people who want to provide
homes for Black children" (Small, 1986: 90). Small's
view has had a profound impact not just in the way the children
are classified, but also on the perception of social welfare
professionals. There is a sense that there is no longer any
need for further discussions or analysis of the children's
identity, their cultural heritage and how they could be viewed
in society. Those who have attempted to present a different
point of view face a posse of accusation that they are either
too middle class in their orientation or racist. This suggests
there is little consideration given to the particular experience
of each child if current assumptions are maintained. For example,
what is a child to do when they look in the mirror and the
reflection they see bears no resemblance to the black teacher
they see in the nursery, the black parent they live with or
the black children they see around them? There seems to be
some reluctance on the part of commentators to accept the
reality that one of the child's parents is black and the other
white. There is a sense that attempts are being made to redress
the racial injustices and oppression that black people have
suffered in society by ignoring the white aspect of the child's
background and glorifying, indeed accentuating, the black
heritage of the child's history. The explanation of this stance
is clearly political and is based on the quite understandable
rationale that the child's white heritage is reinforced by
society and that irrespective of how the child or others may
view them they are considered (labeled) black by society.
Although in some instances it is acknowledged that this ascription
of blackness may be false, it is nevertheless asserted that
the ascription of blackness has a social reality in the way
the children are viewed and in the way others relate to them.
It is interesting, and somewhat ironic, that ideas that were
floated by Small (1986) and others during the hothouse racial
and cultural debates of the 1980s should now become so entrenched
that the social and personal realities of the children living
the life are ignored by those commenting on their lives. Context
setting The importance of early childhood development has
been well explored, and similarly, the significance of these
early childhood experiences on adult life has been developed
and documented elsewhere (Katz, 1996; Milner, 1983; Klein,
2000). Even in this [post] modern age with its cynicism and
worldliness, it is still possible to assert (without fear
of derision) that these early influences have such profound
effects that they can literally shape an individual's life
chance. This is not to head towards the cul-de-sac of determinism
and the idea that people have no control over their lives,
however limiting. But it is to suggest that life chances and
one's experience of the world is a combination of different
factors and that an individual life experience is not peripheral
to this process. For a child growing up, making sense of their
world is fraught with difficulties. There are uncertainties
and in some cases incomprehension and confusion about the
world around them. Children not only have to cope with the
world around them and get used to its incoherence and confusion
as well as inconsistencies in adult behaviour, they also have
to learn how to live with other children who appear to be
both similar and different from themselves. Everyday "talks"
and contacts with others, which adults take for granted, present
an obstacle course to be negotiated and of which they have
to make sense. Marsland and Leoussi (1996) rightly observed:
"Influences and processes affecting human conditions
and behaviour are rarely simple. They usually involved long
chains or multiple complexes of causal factors which have
to be carefully disentangled" (Marsland and Leoussi,
1996: 110). So a child growing up in any society is faced
with a cacophony of ideas and influences that are all jostling
for prominence. Some influences, of course, have more power
than others but the process is not static; it is fragmented,
fluid and in part discontinuous. The child's sense of self
and their feeling of connectedness do not come from welfare
professionals and clinical psychologists who try to convince
them of who they are, nor from parents and well-meaning commentators
who attempt to impose their views of what a positive identity
looks like. If only it was so simple and straightforward.
The child feels positive racial and cultural identity when
there is congruence in their life; where there is solidity
and continuity; where they can explore and "fantasise"
without fear of over-interpretation or inappropriate interpretation;
where it is safe to explore the depth of their psyche and
its vulnerability and richness; the opportunity to experience
different emotions and test themselves physically with all
the inherent dangers. Focus on the Children Like other children,
children of interracial/interethnic parentage have to be respected
and treated as valued and unique beings. Their needs, personal
situations and circumstances should not be ignored or drowned
under the weight of political and racial dogmatism. From my
observation, it is often the case that those who work with
the children confuse their own personal, social and political
prejudices with the experiences of the children. Consciously
or unconsciously, their disapproval of interracial/interethnic
relationships often manifests itself in the way they view
the children, the assumptions they make, the ideas that inform
their assessment and the way they conduct their work with
the children. As Prevatt-Goldstein (1999) observed with regard
to children from interracial backgrounds: "The black
child with a white parent is the child of two people who have
been constructed as 'racial' opposites by much of present
society. The child therefore has to develop a 'racial' self-concept
which manages this duality...." (Prevatt-Goldstein, 1999:
50). However, she undermined her case by suggesting that:
"The desired outcome for a black child with a white parent
is that a child feels positive about themselves as a black
child with a white parent and feels part of a group that contributes,
survives, challenges" (Prevatt-Goldstein, 1998: 50).
One can only assume that the irony was overlooked in this
instance and the contradiction of the comment somewhat lost
to the author. Prevatt-Goldstein (1999) does not fully explain
how the child can develop a "racial" self-concept,
which manages their duality when she is advocating a neglect
of one part of the child's experience. The difficulty is that
the ideas that are advanced to enable the child to feel included
paradoxically add to the confusion and further disillusionment,
not just for the child but also for those who are genuinely
interested in working positively with such children. Informing
the child that they belong to a group that "contributes,
survives and challenges" may make the adults concerned
feel connected but it is meaningless pseudopsychology that
adds little to the children's actual experiences. Identity
Work The development of an understanding of "self"
through interaction with others within the internal familial
milieux and external wider community begins at a very early
age. If the child's view of him/herself were based on biased
and distorted information that is reinforced by communicators
of cultural norms and values, then the child's sense of identity
would be affected to such an extent that it could leave a
long-lasting scar. Milner (1983), Spencer (1997), Wilson (1987)
and Katz (1996) have further explored these ideas in their
research study. But with regard to children of interracial
and interethnic parentage, the overriding consideration that
seems to inform the approach to the children holds more to
social and political ideals than to what is actually in the
best interest of the children. Of course the children live
within a society in which racism, interethnic conflicts and
prejudise exist. However, they have to make sense of it within
the context in which one of their parents is part of the dominant
group and the other a member of the oppressed group. To be
able to do any meaningful and lasting identity work with such
children, there has to be recognition and attempts to connect
the different racial aspects and ethnicity of the child's
life. To ignore one area of the child's racial and cultural
background and accentuate the other is to commit a fatal error.
This approach encourages the child to firmly plant themselves
on one side, invariably the less socially favoured side, as
a means of achieving personal integration. But as Zack, talking
about her personal experiences, wryly observed: "It's
too late for me to hop to either side because I can't lie
about the presence of my black ancestry and pretend to be
white, and I can't remake my past and become black. Either
I sink or rise. I have decided to rise. And I think that such
transcendence is possible because I am defying the gravity
of merely social reality. I have to function in social reality
but I don't actually live there" (Zack, 1994: 26). Communicating
with children of interracial/interethnic backgrounds In communicating
with children of mixed parentage there are a number of strands
that need to be taken into consideration. These strands form
an important backdrop, not only for our understanding of the
influences that help to shape the children's lives, but as
vital foundations to aid better and more informed communication.
For example, it is vital to take account of: 1.) the children's
development and their understanding of their lives 2.) external
factors and influences 3.) familial arrangements 4.) general
attitudes towards interracial/interethnic relationships In
other words, in order to fully consider all the issues surrounding
communication with children of interracial/interethnic parentage
and to be able to understand their inner world, it is important
to try and understand the "lived reality" of the
children. The Children's Development and their Understanding
of their Lives As has already been well documented, there
are internal dynamics that contribute towards the shaping
of an individual's development, their personality and identity
(Katz, 1996; Owusu-Bempah and Howitt, 2000). Similarly, aside
from their physicality, there are also attributes, cognitive
abilities, emotional states and social skills that individuals
bring to encounters with others that impact the way people
relate to each other. Children from interethnic/interracial
backgrounds, like other children, attempt to make sense of
their lives in a world that is both familiar and distant.
They sometimes have to cope with the uncertainties that surround
them and make sense of a micro world that is inhabited by
adults that are often contradictory, irrational and unpredictable
in both their behaviour and utterances. Children spend the
early stages of their lives believing in the omnipotence of
their parents and other adults around them; in their middle
childhood years they discover that not only can they make
choices but also that the adults whom they have invested with
so much power and wisdom are flawed. Although the early and
middle years are periods of discovery, the pre-adult stage
is also a time of realignments with the "others"
and self-discovery as well as a time for developing and forging
a path. For children of interracial/interethnic backgrounds,
in addition to having to make sense of who they are and where
they belong, there is a great deal of questioning from significant
others and strangers about the children's identity, their
racial affiliations and ethnicity. In most instances the children
are faced with a situation in which, on the one hand, their
parents attempt to provide a nurturing and facilitative environment
from which they could begin to explore the wider world, while
on the other, their very existence is challenged by others.
External Influences Simply expressed, there are external influences
that affect the individual's development and the extent to
which they feel part of the social landscape in which they
live. Although many of these factors are outside the zone
of influences of the individual concerned, nevertheless people
are not just mere puppets or blank slates upon whom the external
prescribes a personality. The process is, of course, more
complex than as Berger and Luckman observed: "I experience
everyday life in terms of differing degrees of closeness and
remoteness, both spatially and temporally. Closest to me is
the zone of everyday life that is directly accessible to my
bodily manipulation" (Berger and Luckman, 1985: 36).
Berger and Luckman's observation reinforces the notion that
as much as people are shaped by the world, they are also involved
in shaping the world. Berger and Luckman's "social construction
of reality" and Brofenbrenners's (1979) ecology of human
development provide a framework from which to understand the
dynamic interplay between the internal and external influences.
What is of interest in this instance is that the process is
fluid, discontinuous, contested and fragmented. Children,
like adults, are able to make decisions (albeit limited and
with support from others) about life in a way that facilitates
the continuity of their lives. It is evident that children
from interracial/interethnic relationships are locked into
a condition in which the external world attempts to exercise
a greater degree of power and influence upon their identity
and how they should be defined. The power and control is manifested
through the attempt to define how children of interracial/interethnic
parentage should be identified. Familial Arrangements It is
evident that assumptions are made of children of interracial/interethnic
backgrounds are unlikely to be reared and nurtured in a non-mono-ethnic/mono-racial
household. Irrespective of the domestic arrangements of the
child's family, there is an imposition of what can only be
described as a racially/ethnically divided binary world view.
This assumption may suit the social and political trend of
the period; it does not necessarily help in our understanding
of the children's experiences nor does it provide an insight
as how to best work with such children and their families.
Unlike Small (1986), Banks (1998), Barn (1999) and Prevatt-Goldstein
(1999), I would like to suggest that any direct work with
children from interracial/interethnic backgrounds needs to
start from the premise that the children are of interracial/interethnic
background. The children's reality is that they are from families
where, in some cases, one parent is black and the other is
white, or in other instances, one parent hails from one ethnic
group and the other from another ethnic group. Importantly,
the children and their families should not be given the impression
that coming form an interracial or interethnic background
is in some way negative, pathological or abnormal. It is recognised
that the children are part of a social context where discrimination
and oppression of all kinds takes place; however, the children
also belong to a narrower private world that challenges the
negative assumptions and attempts to embrace a different social
world where there is an acceptance and a synergy of difference.
Attitudes Towards Interracial/Interethnic Relationships The
other area that needs to be borne in mind in communicating
with children of interracial/interethnic parentage is the
negative attitudes that are held towards interracial/interethnic
relationships. It is evident that there are particular difficulties
experienced by those involved in such relationships (Zack,
1995; Xuanning Fu and Heaton, 1997; Warren, Walton & Johnson,
1994). This is because the people involved in the relationship
are subject to a range of external pressures about the nature
of relationships and they are asked to justify themselves.
For example, many have reported the often negative and hostile
reactions from their families and friends because of their
relationship with a partner from a different ethnic or racial
background. As highlighted by Alibhai-Brown and Montague (1992):
"You're looked down on as if you have degraded yourself
and made to feel as if you have done something impure, something
immoral...once or twice have been spat at and called a whore"
(Brown and Montague, 1992: 140). What this highlights is that
for many people involved in such relationships, particularly
the women, they not only experience disapproval from family
and friends, but they also have to cope with disapprobation
from complete strangers. For example, with regard to interracial
relationships, many women with interracial/interethnic children
speak of a sneering accusatorial look they get from others
who find it difficult to accept the idea of people forming
relationships outside their racial, cultural or ethnic group
(Rosenblatt, Karis & Powell, 1995; Mathabane and Mathabane,
1993). People who disapprove of the relationship have no difficulty
expressing their views. Sometimes there are negative non-verbal
gestures that are directed at those involved in the relationship,
in other instances the negative reaction is more furtive.
However, in general the negative reaction is openly and aggressively
displayed. In my own research study, respondents highlighted
the verbal abuses and non-verbal disapproving body language
directed not just at them but also at the children (Okitikpi,
2001). Mixing the Particular With the Universal To communicate
with children of interracial/interethnic parentage with the
underlining assumption that they are "other" or
they could only belong to the ethnic group of one parent is
in my view a mistake. It is a mistake because it fails to
take account of the social reality of the children and does
not give serious consideration to the differences that exist
within such children and their families. In my view it has
often been the case that it is the negative experiences of
a small group of children from interracial/interethnic backgrounds
that shape the way professionals view all such children. I
would argue that while a great deal could be learned as a
result of a close study and understanding of small but unrepresentative
groups of children who have displayed negative behaviour about
themselves because of their background, it would be an injustice
and indeed damaging if welfare professionals approach the
majority of the children with the same assumptions as those
whom have had dysfunctional and difficult childhood experiences.
As already mentioned, it is often asserted that, by dint of
their dual heritage, such children are invariably confused
by their sense of identity and with which of their parents
to identify. However, the premise of this article is that
children's sense of identity need not be in a state of flux,
uncertainty or confusion if those working with them have a
clearer idea of the pressures the children face and their
parent's experience. In my view, the confusion about the children's
identity lay with those who attempt to define children in
a way that negates the children's lived experience. This negation
also fails to allow, like everyone else, an opportunity for
the children to develop a complex identity with all the uncertainties,
contradictions and fluidity that it entails. By treating the
children as if they inhabit a binary world in which you can
only be one thing, we limit the scope of human possibilities.
Rather, the children need to be encouraged to embrace a world
that is multilayered, fluid and emerging. It is evident that
as children with parents from two different racial and cultural
backgrounds, children of interracial/interethnic parentage
shoulder a heavy ideological responsibility because they are
seen as possibly the "shape of things to come." So far, from the reactions of some welfare professionals and
commentators toward the children and their parents, it is
a future with which many feel uncomfortable and unable to
comprehend. It would appear as if the children's presence
challenges a mono-racial, mono-ethnic haven where an individual's
place, social location and identity are predetermined. Conclusion
The attempt in this article has been to highlight the problems
and illogical short-comings of identifying children of interracial/interethnic
parentage as belonging to one group and the need to develop
communication strategies that are not just sympathetic to
the children's backgrounds but genuinely try to connect the
different strands that affect the children. I would suggest
that to be able to understand the inner and outer world of
children of interracial/interethnic parentage and effectively
communicate with them, those involved in the work have to
accept that the children are part of a multiracial, multicultural
and multiethnic society that challenges a binary worldview.
The children belong to a family that has challenged the idea
that one's colour, culture and ethnicity dictate with whom
one should form a relationship. It is therefore important
to accept that the children should not be encouraged to embrace
one aspect of their identity over and above the other and
that communication is more likely to be successful when the
person at the receiving end can connect with what is being
said. Communication at its simplest is paradoxically complex
and difficult to get right. Children of interracial/interethnic
parentage require and indeed deserve a more informed approach;
their needs ought to be the primary focus of attention rather
than being secondary to the ideological, cultural, racial
and ethnic war taking place between those who are more interested
in asserting a simplistic non-racial and mono-ethnic world
where diversity and difference are viewed not as achievements
to be celebrated but as a threat to the very existence of
society.
References Alibhai-Brown, J. and Montague, A. (1992).
The
colour of love. Virago. Banks, N. (1992).
Techniques for direct
work with Black children. BAAF, 16,3 (19-25).
Banks, N. (1995).
Children of Black Mixed Parentage and their Placement Needs.
Fostering and Adoption, 19, 2 (19-24).
Barn, R. (1993).
Black
Children in the Public Care System. London: Batsford. Barn,
R. (1999).
Mixed Parentage Children. British Journal of Social
Work (269-284).
London. Benson, S. (1992).
Ambiguous Ethnicity.
Cambridge University Press. Berger, P. and Luckman, T. (1985).
The Social Construction of Reality. Reading: Penguin. Brofenbrenner,
U. (1979).
The Ecology of Human Development: Experiment by
Nature and Human Design. Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press. Henriques, F. (1975).
Children of Conflict: A Study
of Interracial Sex and Marriage. Dutton Press. Kanna, C.T.
(1973).
Interracial Marriages in London, a comparative study.
Katz, I. (1996).
The Construction of Racial Identity in Children
of Mixed Parentage. Mixed Metaphors. JKP.
