Chapter 5

Taylor poses the following question at the beginning of the chapter: in a society where 'color consciousness' is frowned upon, why is it seen as acceptable in the conjugal sphere?  Intra-racial relationships and marriages are considered the norm, while interracial relationships are subjected to scrutiny and varying degrees of discrimination, because they are often deemed 'unnatural' or 'unusual.'  As I mentioned in a previous post, when my cousin had a black boyfriend, she was met with much disapproval and at times accused of betraying her fellow 'whites,' advised  to 'stick with vanilla' and the like.  A definite portion of the backlash was the result of resisting social pressures, particularly from family members--especially those of older generations   If the idea of 'market solidarity'  is not a concern for whites, what exactly is at work here? Is it the result of  years of negative conceptions about black people and  the promotion of white aesthetics and superiority? The entrenched and dated attitudes of people in my grandparents' generation? In terms of the idea of relationship capital, did people perceive my cousin to be 'lowering'  her own status?

And this doesn't even touch upon her boyfriend's experience and the backlash he received, of which I know little. I can definitely understand to an extent the arguments of 'cultural preservation,' although they don't hold given that race is a social construct. I can see how dating or marrying a member of the dominant, oppressive race--although this individual may not be responsible for said oppression--could be seen as a betrayal of sorts. A race that enslaved, discriminated, and subsequently appropriated the culture and practices it originally tried to stamp out. But how we will ever cease our social differentiation along racial lines if we remain within the us vs. them mindset and create separate racial coalitions and such? As Taylor says, "...the real key to equality is a much exogamy...as possible. After all, advocates of this view have said, why would I discriminate against my own relative?" (165). We already face the barrier of largely separate white and black social spheres thanks to zoning, real estate, job discrimination, wealth gaps, etc. 

I have never heard the argument that interracial relationships could be an expression of self-hatred before. This reminded me of high school when my Asian friend was telling us how excited his mom was that he was taking a 'white girl' to prom rather than an Asian girl. Was she expressing self-hatred when she said this and a desire for her son to improve his social capital through association? Or was she happy that he didn't feel obligated to stick to his own kind? I'm not sure what was exactly at play here, but I feel as though the self-hatred argument is too weak to adequately prove. Instead, we must be aware of our attitudes and their sources. Also, Taylor  argued that JJ's decisions were less important than those of a role model in the public sphere. While that person does have a much greater influence and  audience,  I don't think either one of them should be expected to choose life partners on the basis of their racial identity so as to prevent psychological harm to their race. Yes, perhaps their choices and their ideas of beauty and sexuality are largely influenced by white supremacy, but how can we prove that their relationships are based upon self-hatred and not love, and how would creating the obligation of intra-racial marriages do anything then perpetuate the patterns that are already in place? What's more, the continued stigma between interracial relations will continue the social segregation already at play in the US. It's much more effective to target the conditions that produce problematic individual choices instead of vice versa. Then within the conjugal sphere  given "other things being equal... [we are able to] focus on character, not color" (159). 

Taylor also discussed affirmative action policies. I can remember during the college application process in high school students would complain about how they wished they had some sort of ethnicity that would give them the edge they needed for their first choice school or make statements like "she only got in to that school because she's black."Upon further examination, these arguments are rather flimsy and only based upon problematic assumptions. After all, the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. It wasn't until I took an intro Sociology course and we discussed the objectives of affirmative action (namely, giving under-represented groups and populations who are socially situated in ways that disadvantage them a foot in the door, an opportunity they might not other wise have) that I truly understood its benefits and necessity.  I don't think quota filling is a noble pursuit, but I do see the merit in fighting historical discrimination and providing outreach and inclusion for those who have been systematically oppressed and excluded. We always run into issues with our heavily individualistic American perspective, which fails to look at the good of the collective people and instead places people in cutthroat competition with one another for social goods like education and jobs. 

Yet, at the same time, Taylor pointed out that affirmative action policies were concessions to Civil Rights leaders to contain and satisfy the opposition.  This is something I had never considered before and it concerns me how it aligns so well with the concept of 'rule by consent." If that's the case, then is affirmative action just a false prize that distracts from the root problems of racism and racial inequality? As it stands, I think it is a necessary set of policies for attempting to make up for historical inequality, but is it really doing its job?