Abstract
This study examines constructions of racial differences within online stories narrated by individuals involved in interracial romantic relationships. A dialogic analysis of the stories (n = 76) revealed that interracial romantic partners challenged difference by positioning racial dissimilarity as problematic, contrasting differences with partner similarities, devaluing difference in the evaluation of relational success, and erasing difference or refuting an interracial relational identity altogether. The marginalization of difference in contrast to the dominance of similarity in individuals’ talk suggests that interracial partners participate in a great deal of discursive work to legitimize their relationships.
Interpersonal communication research often privileges similarity over difference, especially in the study of relationships, regarding the function that similarity serves in relational development (Baxter, 2011). Similarity is positioned as “sameness on attitudes, values, dispositional characteristics, and demographic features,” and difference is characterized as the absence of similarity (Baxter, 2011, p. 106). Baxter (2011) argues that the tendency among both scholars and research participants alike is to treat difference as something to be fixed, thus framing difference as inherently “bad” and similarity as “good.” The examination of difference is scarce, which is surprising considering the influx of personal relationships that are socially marked by difference. A relationship type in which difference is most prevalent is interracial romantic relationships (IRRs).
IRRs have a history of being deemed culturally suspect primarily due to racial dissimilarity among romantic partners (Gaines & Leaver, 2002). Difference permeates interracial dyads, and the often visual representation of difference among interracial partners (i.e., skin tone and hair texture) denotes the initial source of social disapproval for these dyads (Duck & VanderVoort, 2002). Societal members view IRRs as inappropriate or non-traditional (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006, 2007) and position racial difference as a threat to ideologies that constitute normative romantic relationship identities. Research has yet to focus on how interracial romantic partners (IRPs) frame their differences through talk which could give rise to an understanding of the meaning-making processes that take place in individuals’ constructions of their IRR identities. The purpose of this study is thus to examine IRPs’ constructions of difference in online stories. The contention that extant research privileges similarity over difference (Baxter, 2011) suggests the need for a dialogic approach to the current study, which contributes to an understanding of difference as constructed by IRPs who often assume marginalized (socially devalued and stigmatized) relational identities.
Constructing racial differences in IRRs
Treatment of similarity and difference
Baxter (2011) argues that communication scholars position similarity and unity as focal points in their research. Similarity is often positively evaluated due to perceptions that it breeds successful relational functioning. In comparison, difference gets framed as the antithesis of similarity and regularly receives negative evaluation due to difference being treated as a problem or struggle that ought to be eradicated. Difference frequently surfaces in interpersonal conflict research but is considered synonymous with incompatibility (Roloff & Soule, 2002) and responsible for disruptions or conflict in interpersonal interactions. Far less research takes on the goal of understanding the functionality of differences among relational partners compared to partner similarities, although some scholars suggest that difference is not necessarily harmful to relationships (e.g., Markey & Markey, 2007; Sadler, Ethier, & Woody, 2011). Individuals are able to report on both positive and negative features of partner differences (Bell & Hastings, 2011; Reiter & Gee, 2008; Troy, Lewis-Smith, & Laurenceau, 2006). However, there is still an overwhelming response from participants regarding the positive evaluation they place on similarity compared to difference (Baxter, Foley, & Thatcher, 2008; Baxter & West, 2003). Research on IRRs provides evidence of a similar pattern of privileging similarity and treating difference as a springboard for potential problems among IRPs.
The marginalization of IRRs
Social marginalization
IRRs have received a plethora of social opposition and disapproval in the U.S. Government sanctions against IRRs are thought to be a part of the distant past, yet the last state to officially revoke the illegalization of interracial marriages (Alabama) occurred as recently as 2000 (Hartill, 2001). The U.S. Census indicates an increase of interracial unions from 3 million or 5% of all marital couples in 2000 to 4.5 million or 8.4% in 2010 (Wang, 2012). Interracial dating and cohabitation are on the rise as well (Qian & Lichter, 2007; Wang, 2012). Even with this growth, IRRs have garnered recent media attention for becoming victims of social discrimination reminiscent of the Jim Crow era (Foster, 2010; Italie, 2013; Ng, 2011). Despite increased IRR approval rates (e.g., Carroll, 2007; Wang, 2012), IRPs maintain their social status as living on the periphery.
Common perceptions of IRRs of all racial pairings are that they disrupt family and cultural traditions, result in problematic issues for interracial couples and their potential mixed-race children, and threaten the notion of racial purity (e.g., George & Yancey, 2004; Steinbugler, 2012). A 2009 Pew Research Center survey (Wang, 2012) found that acceptance of interracial marriage to Whites (81%) is favored somewhat more than interracial marriage to Asians (75%), Hispanics (73%), or Blacks (66%). Acceptance of and willingness to engage in IRRs is not uniformly distributed among dyads of different racial makeups, indicating that racial boundaries still exist when it comes to the establishment of personal relationships (Bonilla Silva, 2010; Yancey, 2009). Such attitudinal data helps set the tone for recognizing IRRs as socially marginalized, the source of which originates from racial dissimilarities among romantic partners.
Relational marginalization
IRPs are not unresponsive to societal perspectives of opposition toward their relationships. They are likely to experience relational marginalization, or the perception that their romantic relationships are met with disapproval by the general society as well as members of their social networks (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2007), as a result of such views. IRPs are victims of racist and discriminatory acts (Orbe & Allen, 2008; Yancey, 2007) and report experiencing disapproval, conflict, and alienation from network members (Brummett & Steuber, 2015; Miller, Olson, & Fazio, 2004). IRPs are also prone to perceptions of prejudice and expectations for social stigmatization (e.g., Vaquera & Kao, 2005). Recognizing the possibility for social sanctions as well as experiences with social network disapproval is associated with hesitancy to establish intimate interracial relationships (e.g., Wang, Kao, & Joyner, 2006).
Relational marginalization and the perceived absence of racial similarity or compatibility are cited as primary reasons for relationship dissolution (Wang et al., 2006) and increased divorce rates (Bratter & King, 2008) among IRPs. Conflict due to cultural barriers (Reiter & Gee, 2008) as well as differences in sex role ideologies and consequently child-rearing (Forry, Leslie, & Letiecq, 2007) are thought to contribute to these relational outcomes. IRPs are thus more likely to place emphasis on their similarities and common interests as justification for participating in IRRs (Karis, 2009; Killian, 2003). Evidence of this claim, however, is scarce. Research should focus specifically on the ways in which differences surface in IRR communication in order to understand how IRPs construct meanings of difference and how those meanings aid in the construction of their relational identities. Communicative negotiations of racial differences among IRPs offer a site for such examination.
A dialogic approach to understanding difference
The theoretical framework guiding this study is relational dialectics theory (RDT; Baxter, 2011), which provides a useful dialogic perspective in examining the potential competing views that help to construct IRPs’ meanings of difference. As described by Baxter (2011), “RDT is a theory of relational meaning making—that is, how the meanings surrounding individual and relationship identities are constructed through language use” (p. 2). The primary argument proposed in RDT is that meanings get constructed through the interplay of competing discourses that derive from the social. Discourses, or systems of meaning, arise in individuals’ communication or utterances. The interplay of discourses often occurs through centripetal–centrifugal struggle (Bakhtin, 1981) with centripetal referring to discourses that get centered or privileged in conversation and centrifugal as those discourses that become marginalized (Baxter, 2011). An interesting question that often gets posed in dialogic research is how certain discourses gain power and become centered but others do not.
Another significant premise of RDT is that individuals speak in utterances which are part of the utterance chain defined as “a profoundly social phenomenon in which the words of the moment respond to prior utterances and address anticipated responses not yet spoken” (Baxter, 2011, p. 12). An individual never speaks in isolation but rather participates in an intertextual, ongoing dialogue. The utterance chain is where the interplay of discourses takes place. One of four types of links (see Baxter, 2011 for review), the distal already-spoken, refers to those utterances which already exist within the larger culture or society and animate, directly or indirectly, individuals’ talk. For example, the utterance that dominates cultural ideologies surrounding IRRs is that racial dissimilarity is the source of struggle for IRPs.
The interplay of different discourses as they exist in speakers’ utterances can take many shapes along a continuum with monologue at one end and dialogue at the other. Monologue marks the point at which one discourse becomes so dominant or authoritative that alternative, competing discourses are silenced and meanings can become calcified (Bakhtin, 1981). Dialogue, however, involves the “realignment of discourses in which new meanings are created” (Baxter, 2011, p. 138). The most common form of interplay is polemic in nature and takes place when one or more discourses get centered and others become marginalized. In other words, discourses are in competition with one another, and a “jockeying” process occurs to determine where discourses land in the centripetal–centrifugal struggle (p. 138).
Ascertaining the type of discursive interplay that exists within IRPs’ talk about their racial differences is somewhat difficult. IRPs might reiterate the centripetal discourse in society thus marginalizing difference and focusing on romantic partner similarities. The dominant distal discourses circulating in society that privilege similarity might infiltrate IRPs’ online stories and discussions of race could potentially be shut down entirely as evidenced in some extant research (Killian, 2002). The possibility also exists that IRPs are reclaiming and celebrating their differences as a way to cease external legitimation (Galvin, 2006) of their relational identities. The current study seeks to address the potential discourses at play regarding differences within IRPs’ stories in order to understand how IRPs frame the very racial differences that often incite their socially marginalized identities. The following research question is posed:
Method
Sample of IRPs’ online stories
The study sample is comprised of 76 online stories posted on www.experienceproject.com by individuals who self-identify as currently participating in IRRs. The website features millions of anonymous stories that recount individuals’ experiences regarding various topics. The sample for the current study derives from a group on the website entitled, “I Am In An Interracial Relationship,” which included 1,966 members at the time of data analysis. The site encourages members to share their IRR stories and provide feedback to other group members who seek relational advice. The researcher selected 76 stories from the 83 original stories posted on the group website between 2007 and 2011. Seven posts were excluded from data analysis, because they did not respond to the website’s call for narratives about IRR experiences (e.g., marketing for interracial dating sites and solicitation of interested dating partners). Due to the anonymity of members, the website does not provide demographic information regarding members’ race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. However, almost every member who posted a story provided his/her age range and sex. Members’ ages ranged from 18 to 50, and 11.7% of the sample identified as male (n = 9) and 64.9% as female (n = 50), with 23.4% (n = 18) indicating no sex identification.
Data analysis
The study employs a contrapuntal analysis in examining the data set of online stories, which is a type of discourse analysis in which a researcher identifies competing discourses within selected texts (Baxter, 2011). The researcher began the analytic process by independently reading through the stories several times and then locating themes within the stories using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) steps of thematic analysis. Embedded in this process is the coding of textual segments that respond to the research question under consideration. Textual segments were identified based on frequency, extensiveness, and intensity (Krueger, 1998) and assigned to coded categories until the researcher ceased to identify any new emergent categories or make changes to established ones, also referred to as the point of saturation. Saturation was reached after 24 stories at which time the researcher began the process of combining the emergent themes into discourses. Similar to the inductive process of coding themes, discourses were identified and reworked until the coalescence of themes met analytic saturation. For this study, the four themes of difference as problematic, we’re more similar than different, difference is inconsequential, and the erasure of difference were combined into the discourse of racial dissimilarity among romantic partners is bad.
Upon completion of identifying the larger discourses at play, the second step of contrapuntal analysis is to locate discourses in competition with one another. One technique used in this step is to identify “discourse markers,” including negating, countering, and entertaining (Baxter, 2011, p. 166). Lexical markers such as these focus on the details of talk in order to understand the function that certain words, such as but, although, and yet take on in communication. A second approach involves illustrating the ways in which “discourses are framed as competing by typical members of a cultural system” (Baxter, 2011, p. 164). For example, research suggests that similarity is a privileged discourse within the larger culture, and difference is often marginalized. The researcher engaged in both of these analytic techniques as well as the process of unfolding (Bakhtin, 1984; Baxter, 2011), which involved situating the online stories within a larger conversation and imagining them as part of an utterance chain that responds to both previous and anticipated utterances.
A final step in contrapuntal analysis is determining the type(s) of interplay that exists among competing discourses. Discourses can fall along a continuum between monologue and true dialogue, with polemic interplay occupying a place on the continuum where discourses tend to aggregate. The study’s analysis reveals that competing discourses regarding racial differences are primarily monologic in nature. Two validation procedures were used to determine the credibility of the data analysis (Creswell, 2013). A peer debriefer who was not involved in the research process reviewed the researcher’s work and made constructive inquiries and suggestions about the methodological procedures and data interpretations. This procedure served as an external check of the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Negative case analysis (Ely, Anzul, Friedman, Garner, & Steinmetz, 1991) also allowed the researcher to refine the analysis. When textual exemplars did not coalesce with selected themes or discourses, a reinterpretation of the data commenced and discourses were adjusted accordingly. The interplay of competing discourses within IRPs’ online stories is discussed at length in the following analysis.
Results
An analysis of the online stories revealed an overwhelming response from IRPs to the larger cultural discourse that frames racial differences and IRRs as problematic. The dominant discourse that emanates from the data is that racial differences are bad, especially due to the problems that they can instigate within one’s social network member relationships.
Responding to the dominant cultural discourse
Many IRPs reference in their narratives the taboo nature of their romantic relationships and the social stigma that gets attached to interracial couples. More specifically, individuals discuss the particularly difficult challenge of receiving opposition and disapproval toward their IRRs from members of their social networks. One woman recounts disclosing the nature of her romantic relationship to her mother and being met with instantaneous disapproval: About two years ago, I started to tell my mom about [partner’s name]. I listed all of the great things about him—Ivy League grad, great job, big family, attractive, someone important enough for me to actually tell her about him…But then I dropped the big bomb…“Mom, he’s black.” And let me tell you—it was like she completely forgot everything else I had just said about him. (#32) He’s African American and I’m white. Needless to say, we both face problems from both sides of the spectrum…The REAL problem is on my side…my father has no idea about my relationship. I fear that if I told him, he would immediately pull me away from him and lock me up at home…I’m put under the pressure of dealing with the fact that my relationship will never be acceptable in my own family. (#27)
The social stigma associated with racial differences among romantic partners also gets presented through reported speech or thought in IRPs’ stories, wherein IRPs recount the utterances of family and friends. Individuals use direct and indirect reported speech, or active double voicedness (Bakhtin, 1984), to indicate that the discourse of racial differences as problematic has centripetal or privileged force. For example, one person talks about her parents’ beliefs regarding what her choice of a racially dissimilar partner represents to them. She says, “They believe what I am doing is disgusting and morally wrong. They feel that I am telling them ‘goodbye’ and do not respect them, though that is not the case” (#10). Another individual quotes her father to suggest the reasoning behind his disapproval of her relationship: …what bothers me the most is that my dad doesn’t agree with it [the relationship]. He thinks “it wouldn’t be fair to our future children.” He has only mentioned that to me once but I know he still feels that way and will never truly care for my boyfriend ever. (#17)
In responding to the previous utterance and dominant cultural discourse, “Racial dissimilarity among romantic partners is bad,” some narrators reject the discourse and others accept it due to the challenges that racial differences present. Regardless of their opposition toward or agreement with the cultural discourse, all of the narrators participate in discursive work that marginalizes rather than reclaims or celebrates racial differences within their IRRs.
Monologic discourse: Racial dissimilarity among romantic partners is bad
One primary discourse emerges from the data: “Racial dissimilarity among romantic partners is bad.” The fact that its competing discourse, “Racial dissimilarity among romantic partners is good,” is not present in the data suggests that the type of discursive interplay represented in the stories is a monologue. The monologic discourse is evident throughout four main themes that cut across the stories which present difference as the centrifugal, marginalized discourse in competition with the centripetal, dominant discourse of similarity.
Within the stories, individuals marginalize difference in various ways when discussing racial dissimilarities between themselves and their partners. Some specifically talk about the problems that arise in their relationships due to racial differences and present them as potentially unmanageable. For these narrators, difference is treated as a source of incompatibility between partners (Theme #1: difference as problematic). Others recognize that racial differences exist in their relationships but participate in more subtle work to suggest that these differences are problematic. They pay lip service to their differences but then shift topics to focus instead on partner similarities (Theme #2: we’re more similar than different). Many of the stories include discursive work to devalue difference and minimize its importance within the context of romantic relationships (Theme #3: difference is inconsequential). There are also several stories in which the silencing of difference occurs through the narrators’ refusal to acknowledge race and their refutation of an IRR identity altogether (Theme #4: the erasure of difference).
Theme #1: Difference as problematic
In many stories, IRPs respond to the social climate toward IRRs by suggesting that differences between themselves and their partners present various challenges. Story #71 is representative of the impact that social others have on IRPs in constructing meanings of difference. We almost got married last year but then something happened. We saw our differences because of people. Our different languages and cultures had never been a problem before, we never realized they could be a problem. Until we saw the way people look at us.
The narrator of this story clearly constructs partner differences as a problem that threatens her relationship’s progression into marriage; however, she calls up cultural differences as problematic rather than racial differences. Several IRPs talk about racial and cultural differences in their relationships, sometimes synonymously, as further complicating the nature of their romantic partnerships. An example of the difficulty involved in navigating the intersectionality of a relational identity can be seen in the following excerpt: …we’re far more different culturally than I had thought. I believed that because he was born in the States that he was the same as me. Turns out, he’s kind of in-between: not totally American, but not totally Chinese either. I think it’s beautiful that he’s a new breed altogether…it’s just important to keep in mind that when you’re in an interracial/intercultural relationship, their fundamental rules and yours aren’t going to be the same. It’s important to talk about this to reach mutual understanding. (#74) I tried to break the news of us being together to my parents. I knew they might be racist but I didn’t know they were that bad. It’s absolutely out of the question for me to date a black girl and my dad even said she is like an animal. (#5)
Beyond recognizing the social challenges that racial differences present, IRPs also make note of racial dissimilarity as problematic from an internal or dyadic perspective as exemplified in an excerpt from a Taiwanese woman’s story when talking about her romantic partner. She states, “I have a feeling the reason why he hasn’t asked to make us official is because of our different races as he is Pakistani” (#21). Difference is problematic in this sense not because of the lack of social network support a couple may or may not receive but because racial and ethnic differences prevent successful relationship development.
In addition to discussing experiences with relational hardships due to racial dissimilarities, some IRPs suggest that they might eventually face adversity as their relationships progress. An IRP reflects on the racial difference in her relationship: But lately this difference between him and I has really been bothering me. Mostly when I think of the future…[I’m] not sure if his parents know we are dating and am not sure that his parents are okay with him being with someone that is not Chinese and specifically being serious with someone that is White. (#25) …the differences, he’s black, very tall (was a basketball player), younger, Muslim…I have a degree, am international and non-religious…well strange as it may be things are working out…love is sometimes a mystery!!!!! (#31)
Theme #2: We’re more similar than different
A second common theme supporting the dominant discourse of racial dissimilarity as bad involves the dismissal of partner differences and the celebration of similarities. Some individuals within the stories explain away racial differences by describing their romantic partners as members of their own racial communities. Story #3 provides a detailed account of this identity construction: Another unique aspect is that this is the first White man that I’ve dated who has grown up in a predominantly Black neighborhood and has mostly Black friends. Although I hate using the term, it is safe to say that my boyfriend “acts Black.” Surprisingly to me, I find this comforting. I don’t have to explain all of the ins and outs of Black culture to him. He understands my stresses with my hair and clothes shopping. He doesn’t look at me as some sort of exotic fetish…he is genuinely more comfortable around Black women.
The construction of similarities as positive and serviceable to an IRR also surfaces within the stories. IRPs briefly discuss their racial differences but then place them in opposition with like characteristics and make the choice to define their relationships by features they share with their significant others: I’m from Estonia…my boyfriend is Mexican-American…We have religion issues too—he’s Christian, I’m spiritual but not religious. We learned how to deal with it. We do have our differences, but lots of things in common, including life philosophy. (#18)
Racial differences are also constructed as physical dissimilarities but are directly contrasted with internal (i.e., psychological, spiritual, and emotional) similarities which are given more value. This contrast appears distinctly in one woman’s story: I’m a 5ft 4, raven haired, dark brown eyed, dark skinned American growing up with old-fashioned Mexican grandparents. He’s a 6ft 2, blond haired, green eyed, light skinned German growing up in a town with almost no other race. And while these outward appearances make us sound like night and day, we are so compatible in thoughts, emotions and goals. (#33)
Theme #3: Difference is inconsequential
In addition to framing racial differences as obstructions within their romantic relationships, several IRPs marginalize difference by devaluing its significance. Once again, individuals recognize that differences exist between themselves and their partners, but they discount that reality by suggesting that difference does not and, more importantly, should not define their relationships. Differences are inconsequential to a relationship’s success. The IRP narrating story #18 captures this perspective: We don’t have a drastic difference but there IS one. [I come from] the land of blonde, thin, and round blue-eyed people (although I’m not quite blonde or very thin); my boyfriend is…tan, dark, mysterious almond shaped eyes, curly black hair…Funny thing is that I never look at him as non-white; it never mattered to me either.
The dismissal of racial distinctions between romantic partners is not always constructed as an easy or immediate process. Some IRPs talk about their efforts to place less importance on race over time: It took a very strong will and some self-reflection on my part to get to a place where I felt comfortable and confident enough to say that I love based on the love I receive, not based on the color of the person…Now, don’t get me wrong…I’m not one of those “I don’t see color” people. The reality is we live in a world that is very much about the color of a person’s skin, however I never thought that it was reason enough to close myself to the chance to meet someone who may turn out to be the love of my life. (#45)
The idea that difference should be disregarded in the identification of a successful relationship was voiced by several IRPs as exemplified by one man who said, “It’s not the race, where you are from, color of your skin, or accent that matters…what matters is what is in your heart” (#73). In this excerpt, the man places importance on internal versus external/physical characteristics. Similar discursive work appears in story #76 as a woman reflects on the features of her relationship that help her cope with others’ lack of understanding regarding her choice of a relational partner: We don’t let it get us down, though, we know that our love, and the life we have together, is bigger and deeper than the color of our skin or the shape of our eyes or the language we first learned.
Theme #4: The erasure of difference
Although some IRPs marginalize difference by acknowledging it and then relinquishing it of its power, some individuals work instead to extinguish racial differences from existence. They discuss at length within their stories the idea that love is color-blind, thus completely erasing race and its potential relational impacts. The removal of race in one person’s story becomes evident as she argues for a post-race society: When you love…you don’t see color you see a PERSON that makes you happy…My soul mate just happens to be white and I happen to be black. We fell in love with each other for who we are not what color we are. Those who make dating a certain race a priority I don’t believe are looking for true love…If you ask me they don’t want love they want the idea that only one race can supply what they are looking for. (#46) I’ve spent my entire life in interracial relationships. I’m hoping that one day we will stop classifying a couple that come from different cultural backgrounds as an interracial relationship and just simply look at them for what they really are…just two people in love…PERIOD! (#35)
A quintessential moment of completely erasing difference as it relates to a romantic relationship identity occurs in one man’s story when he says, “I am not in an interracial relationship, even though we are of two different races. We are not the difference in our races” (#28). The man recognizes that difference exists in his relationship, but he also denies an IRR identity. He specifically states that racial differences do not define his relationship. Although an absolute refutation of an interracial identity occurs less often in the stories, many IRPs work to erase difference in their talk when constructing meaning surrounding their relationships.
Summary of monologic discourse
All four themes within IRPs’ online stories serve to marginalize difference and support the discourse of racial dissimilarity among romantic partners as bad which permeates the data. Excerpts from the stories exemplify each of the themes as distinct from one another; however, several stories capture individuals’ ambivalence toward difference and their use of many discursive tactics to decenter it. The fusing of themes is particularly prevalent in one woman’s account of racial dissimilarity in her relationship when she says, “We get over our differences, and our differences are enlightening. We learn so much from one another, especially because we are of two different races and cultures…Our different races mean nothing” (#56). The woman at first frames difference as something to “get over” and problematizes it. She then briefly celebrates difference as an individually serviceable tool that allows her and her partner to broaden their cultural knowledge. But then she states that race means “nothing.” She at once strips difference of meaning completely, thus shutting down the discourse of difference. The fluidity of constructions of difference among IRPs suggests some sort of discursive struggle; however, difference is always positioned in opposition to similarity. IRPs work to reject the distal discourse circulating in the larger culture which suggests that IRRs are bad, but they do so by minimizing or dismissing racial differences within their own relationships.
Discussion
An analysis of the sample of online stories reveals that the primary discourse at play in the construction of racial differences in IRPs’ talk is one focused on similarity. Moreover, the discourse of similarity is privileged so much that the discourse of difference as good among IRPs is shut down completely resulting in a discursive monologue. Even though many IRPs refute the construction of IRRs as inappropriate, they resist that construction by participating in discursive work which minimizes partner racial dissimilarities. A common tactic utilized within the stories is the “sideward glance” (Baxter et al., 2008) in which IRPs recognize difference but then work to “bracket it off and contain it in some way” (p. 52). They attempt to legitimize their relationships amid the larger cultural discourse that differences are potentially threatening to relational success. Racial differences are rarely celebrated or referenced as features that enhance an IRR. When moments of celebration occur, IRPs immediately begin to shift focus away from difference and emphasize partner similarities as more valuable.
Marginalizing difference
IRPs marginalize difference in four primary ways. One form takes place through problematizing racial differences. IRPs recognize their differences as contributing to disruptions in their relational development and curtailing their social support. Many of the stories reveal depictions of experienced and perceived family disapproval due to the choice of a racially dissimilar partner. Differences from this perspective are constructed as harmful to IRRs due to the uncertainty and negativity that they manufacture. Discussions of racial difference dominate certain stories but only when differences are positioned as problematic and IRPs outline their dilemmas for the purpose of seeking relational advice from other forum members.
A second form of marginalization occurs through challenging the legitimacy of difference and placing it in direct opposition to partner similarities. Many IRPs briefly discuss their racial differences only to then shift conversations to talk about their shared partner attributes. Psychological partner characteristics are pitted against race as an external marker of difference in order to make claims that internal commonalities carry more weight when evaluating partner compatibility (e.g., shared sense of humor and mutual hobbies). This construction of differences as IRP incompatibilities aligns with the treatment of difference in extant interpersonal communication research (Roloff & Soule, 2002).
The dismissal of difference as significant or worthy of discussion appears in the third theme of marginalization. IRPs are adamant in stating that difference is personally inconsequential. They recognize that racial differences in their relationships exist, but they remove the threat of difference by suggesting that it carries little significance. Importance and value are completely detached from phenotype, and in their place are once again internal components of romantic relationships, most notably love. The various ways in which IRPs enact this devaluing of racial differences is perhaps representative of their movement through Foeman and Nance’s (2002) stages of IRR development, including racial awareness, coping, and identity emergence, wherein couples negotiate their romantic attraction among societal rejection. Many IRPs suggest that fate has chosen a relational partner for them; therefore, race is constructed as insignificant and is masked with the idealization that love is color-blind. Color blindness is often linked to Whites as a strategy for circumventing misunderstanding or the appearance of racial bias or prejudice in social interactions (e.g., Apfelbaum, Sommers, & Norton, 2008). There are several dangers of operating under a color-blind mentality that researchers caution against. The most severe of these is susceptibility to color-blind racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2010) and the immobilization of continued efforts for racial equality (Ansell, 2006). The data from this study indicate that IRPs utilize color blindness as a tactic to avoid romantic and familial conflict perhaps without recognizing its potential for adverse consequences. Further investigation of color blindness as a strategy for IRR maintenance is warranted given these results.
The fourth and perhaps most severe form of marginalization that surfaces in IRPs’ online stories is the complete erasure of racial differences. IRPs engage in discussions about the appropriateness of labeling romantic relationships as interracial. They argue for the removal of race from the construction of romantic relationship identities. Some IRPs deny their participation in an IRR even though they acknowledge that racial dissimilarities exist. The work that they participate in to erase difference speaks to their attempts for legitimation within a society that privileges similarities among relational partners. Racial distinctions are seemingly the most prominent stressor facing IRPs (e.g., Lehmiller & Agnew, 2007). A primary tactic for removing this stressor is to ignore racial differences and instead emphasize partner similarities in order to justify an IRR (e.g., Karis, 2009), which is a strategy readily employed by the IRPs narrating these stories. Focusing only on analogous partner characteristics, however, is likely to shut down conversations about race if partners do not give voice to their racial distinctions. Race talk is paramount to facilitating IRR relational quality and sustenance and could have detrimental individual, dyadic, and social effects if evaded (e.g., Seshadri & Knudson-Martin, 2013). Regrettably for the IRPs in this study, patterns of communicative avoidance emerge when discussing race, which could set them up for future relational hardships.
Conclusion
As Baxter (2011) suggests, narrative stories are fruitful sites of study due to their dialogic expansiveness and ability to consider multiple viewpoints concurrently. She urges for the examination of narrative content but also the process of storytelling. The content within the sample of online stories for this study reveals the positioning of difference and similarity from individuals who are socially marked by difference. Through a dialogic perspective, the study sheds light on how talk surrounding difference functions within IRRs, which appears to be no different than the regulation of difference found in research that focuses on more homogenous samples. The discourse of similarity maintains its centripetal, dominant force in IRPs’ stories about racial differences, thus supporting existing contentions about its discursive power circulating within culture (Baxter, 2011).
The process component of narrative stories is less developed in this study and serves as both a limitation and an avenue for future research. The potential impact that the context in which the stories were written could have on their content was not taken into account. It is possible that as more individuals posted stories on the website, they followed the communicative patterns laid out by those who had already shared their stories. IRPs could have been responding not only to the social climate toward IRRs but also replying to previous utterances on the website regarding IRPs’ relational experiences. Additionally, only those people who were experiencing relational hardships at the time were likely to create posts using this mediated outlet for purposes of venting or seeking social support rather than romantic partners who felt secure in their relationships. Scholars could explore how the process of storytelling (i.e., intended audience and anticipated audience reactions) affects IRPs’ positioning of difference and similarity.
Another feature of the study representing both a point of limitation and possible research endeavor is the lack of certain demographic information as a result of the anonymity of members who posted stories on the website. Information regarding the particular racial makeup of individuals’ IRRs would have been especially useful to examine. Research suggests that certain racial dyads experience more social disapproval and opposition as a result of their unions, such as Black/White pairings (e.g., Yancey, 2007). Therefore, an interesting question to pursue would be how individuals involved in various racially dissimilar relationships talk about difference. Does the marginalization of difference occur to the same degree or get constructed using similar tactics across all interracial couples? Furthermore, the discursive work that IRPs engage in when talking about racial differences might vary depending on the type of relationship under study (i.e., interracial families and interracial friendships). Further research is necessary to expand on these inquiries and explore the discourses at play in individuals’ talk regarding similarity and difference within diverse personal relationships.
Continued work should also be carried out to understand IRPs’ reasons for diminishing partner racial differences and the impact of this communicative phenomenon on relational functioning. Perhaps cultural, hegemonic discourses situated against IRRs are so dominant that they constrain IRPs to talk only about partner similarities. Relational scripts for talking about difference are largely absent from lived experiences. Researchers conjecture though that despite attempts to silence race, IRPs are unable to escape its multitudinous impacts, considering that “one’s opportunities, resources, and social power are all influenced by race” (Leslie & Letiecq, 2004, p. 562). Although avoiding race-talk serves as a coping mechanism for IRPs, it can restrict them from viewing their relationships with a deep sense of clarity. Without discussing race, IRPs are left unable to employ strategies for conflict resolution regarding relational stressors that might arise from dissimilar racial and cultural backgrounds or, more importantly, appreciate the cultural capital and relational opportunities their differences afford them.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author’s note
A version of this article was presented at the July 2012 meeting of the International Association for Relationship Research Conference in Chicago, IL.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.