Abstract
This work also challenges the idea of multiracial people in ‘interracial’ relationships as sites of racial harmony, the dissolution of racial categories, hierarchies, and tensions . . . they surprisingly support rather than subvert the racial classification system. (Mills 2021:29)
Based on 60 interviews with multiracial individuals in interracial relationships, The Colors of Love examines how these individuals make sense of their racial identities and relationships individually and relationally. These understandings are shaped by in/visible mixture at the intersection of “thin” or “thick” racial identities, skin tone, and gender. Mills used this language to describe multiracial individuals who felt part of their racial heritage was more salient (thick) than other parts of their parentage/heritage (thin). Overall, Mills found that being multiracial and being in an interracial relationship mean different things to different people.
For one, outside perceptions of interracial relationships differ for those who are clearly mixed versus invisibly mixed. Furthermore, romantic partners even have different understandings of their (interracial) relationship, as some partners refuse to validate the other’s multiracial identity. Indeed, multiracials commonly experience racial border patrolling from strangers, family members, including their interracial parents, and romantic partners. For example, visibly mixed interracial couples might experience this border patrolling through stares, harassment, or violence, whereas invisibly mixed interracial couples are offered protection by this invisibility. However, invisibility also invalidates one’s multiracial identity. When parents border patrol, they often encourage or discourage certain romantic partnerships, typically with the goal of their child preserving or accruing racial privilege by White proxy.
I was drawn to Mills’ book for both professional and personal reasons. As a Sociology PhD student, I am examining the racial socialization practices of interracial parents for my dissertation research. I want to understand whether they are socializing and encouraging a multiracial or monoracial identity or have some other understanding of race. Furthermore, I want to understand the implications of these socialization practices theoretically as they relate to the racial order in the United States. I also identify as multiracial White-Asian, so have a personal interest in literature on interracial relationships and the formation of multiracial identities. As a white-skinned multiracial woman, I continue to interrogate my own identity and how I am perceived by others. As such, Mills’ findings resonated with some of my experiences and understandings of myself. Similarly, as a self-identified multiracial woman, Mills also expressed that this project helped her to better understand her experiences and to situate them among broader patterns.
I would recommend this book to those interested in family, marriage and romantic relationships, and multiracial identities. It will also be of general interest to race scholars concerned with racial hierarchies and the future of the U.S. racial order, with many questioning whether we will see a Black-Nonblack divide, White-Nonwhite divide, or perhaps a tri-racial order, which Mills discussed in the book. It is also relevant for those teaching sociology of family or race courses.
As Mills acknowledged, one of the study’s limitations is the lack of gender diversity in the sample. Only eight of the 60 participants identified as multiracial men. However, this is a broader limitation of the existing literature as research has primarily focused on the experiences of multiracial women. Future studies should examine the intersection of race and gender in multiracial experiences for men, why they are presumed to be monoracial men of color, and why current research indicates that these boundaries are more salient for multiracial men than women. In addition, an intersectional analysis examining the role of sexual orientation, gender identities outside of the gender binary, and whether participants are first-generation children of immigrants could provide greater insight into individual and relational understandings of race. This is particularly relevant since LGBTQ+-identifying individuals are also more likely to enter interracial relationships.
Since Mills described the influence and input of parents on their child’s romantic relationships and partner selections, future studies should also examine how interracial parents racially socialize their children. This will provide further understanding of how parents encourage or discourage children from adopting various racial identities and why, and how this socialization contributes to their self-identification and romantic partnerships, and expressed racial preferences that are informed by hegemonic White beauty standards.
Mills’ findings contribute to our understanding of multiracial identities, intimate relationships, specifically, interracial relationships, and questions surrounding how/if multiracials blur color lines and the existing racial order. Based on their findings though, it is evident that multiracials “reinforce, rather than erode, the contemporary racial hierarchy” by choosing racial identities and partners that render their racial mixture in/visible (Mills 2021:214). So, despite the growing multiracial population, many continue to claim only one race to demonstrate racial solidarity (oftentimes Black-White individuals), while others seek racial privileges based on implicit Whiteness or proximity to Whiteness (oftentimes Asian-White individuals), reifying the color line. One might wonder whether younger multiracials, the multiracial children of today, will challenge these claims based on their racial identification and romantic choices/behaviors. Regardless, Mills’ assessment asks the reader to interrogate how their identity and romantic partnerships contribute to anti-Blackness and colorblind narratives.