Part 3: The Race Technology of Mixing

As we explore race technology further, we now focus on the third component: mixing.

The technology of mixing encompasses the ideas, policies, and social norms surrounding interracial relationships, multiracial identities, and the concept of racial purity. This technology has played a crucial role in defining and policing racial boundaries, often with devastating consequences for individuals and communities.

At its core, the technology of mixing is built on the myth of racial purity. This myth posits that there are distinct, separate races that should remain unmixed to preserve their supposed unique characteristics. As anthropologist Audrey Smedley notes: “The idea of race was invented to magnify the differences between people of European origin and those of African descent whose ancestors had been involuntarily enslaved and transported to the Americas.”

This invention of racial categories necessitated strict rules about mixing to maintain these artificial boundaries.

The history of anti-miscegenation laws in the United States provides a stark example of how the technology of mixing has been codified into law. These laws, which prohibited interracial marriage and sometimes even interracial sexual relations, were a cornerstone of the Jim Crow era. In Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, we see a clear articulation of this technology: “It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian.”

This law, and others like it, demonstrate how the fear of racial mixing was used to maintain white supremacy. The very existence of these laws reveals the fragility of racial categories – if races were truly distinct biological entities, why would laws be needed to prevent mixing?

The technology of mixing doesn’t just operate at the level of law; it permeates social norms and personal relationships. The stigma attached to interracial relationships, the fetishization of mixed-race individuals, and the pressure to “choose a side” for those with multiracial heritage are all manifestations of this technology at work.

One of the most insidious aspects of the mixing technology is the “one-drop rule” – the idea that any amount of African ancestry makes a person Black. This rule, which was widely accepted in the U.S. for much of its history, demonstrates the asymmetry in how racial mixing is conceptualized. As scholar F. James Davis explains: “The one-drop rule is an American cultural invention that defines as black a person with any known African black ancestry.”

This rule served to maintain the racial hierarchy by ensuring that the category of “white” remained pure and exclusive while expanding the category of “Black” to include anyone with mixed heritage.

The impact of mixing technology extends far beyond individual relationships. It has shaped immigration policies, influenced scientific research, and even affected economic systems. Cedric Robinson’s concept of “racial capitalism ” helps us understand how ideas about racial mixing (or its prevention) have been used to justify economic exploitation.

In the realm of science, the technology of mixing has profoundly impacted how we understand genetics and human variation. Scientific concepts like “hybrid vigor” or “genetic distance” have often been misused to support racist ideologies. As geneticist Joseph L. Graves Jr. points out, “Race as a biological concept is not supported by genetic data, but race as a social construct has very real consequences.”

These consequences are often most acutely felt by those who challenge the boundaries imposed by the mixing technology. Multiracial individuals, in particular, often find themselves navigating complex terrain when it comes to identity and belonging. As scholar Gloria Anzaldúa beautifully articulates: “To live in the Borderlands means you are neither hispana india negra espanola ni gabacha, eres mestiza, mulata, half-breed caught in the crossfire between camps while carrying all five races on your back not knowing which side to turn to, run from.”

This experience of being “caught in the crossfire” is a direct result of the mixing technology’s attempt to maintain rigid racial categories in a world where such categories are increasingly revealed as artificial constructs.

The technology of mixing also intersects with gender in complex ways. Historically, interracial relationships between white women and men of color have been viewed as particularly threatening to the racial order. This fear is rooted in patriarchal ideas about women as the bearers of racial purity. As Bell Hooks observes: “The real fear was that white women would be contaminated by sexual contact with black men.”

This gendered aspect of the mixing technology has had real and often violent consequences, from lynchings justified by false accusations of rape to the forced sterilization of women of color.

In recent years, we’ve seen a shift in how racial mixing is perceived and discussed. The growing multiracial population and increasing acceptance of interracial relationships have challenged traditional notions of racial categories. However, it’s crucial to recognize that these changes don’t necessarily signal the end of the mixing technology. Often, they simply represent a reconfiguration of how it operates.

For instance, the celebration of mixed-race individuals as somehow “post-racial” or as embodying racial harmony can serve to obscure ongoing racial inequalities. The fetishization of mixed-race appearance in media and popular culture can reinforce rather than challenge racial stereotypes. As sociologist Rainier Spencer warns: “Multiracialism is not the answer to racism; antiracism is the answer to racism.”

This insight reminds us that challenging the technology of mixing isn’t about promoting or discouraging racial mixing, but about dismantling the very concept of fixed racial categories.

So how do we begin to dismantle this technology? First, we must recognize and challenge the myth of racial purity wherever we encounter it. This means educating ourselves and others about the arbitrary nature of racial categories and the complex history of human migration and intermixing.

We must also work to create spaces and narratives that allow for complex, multifaceted identities. This means moving beyond simplistic either/or categorizations and embracing the reality of multiple, intersecting identities. As Kimberle Crenshaw, who coined the term “intersectionality,” reminds us: “The problem with identity politics is not that it fails to transcend difference, as some critics charge, but rather the opposite—that it frequently conflates or ignores intragroup differences.”

In the legal realm, we must continue to challenge laws and policies that reinforce rigid racial categories or discriminate based on interracial relationships. While explicit anti-miscegenation laws have been struck down in the U.S., more subtle forms of discrimination persist in areas like adoption, custody battles, and immigration policy.

Education, once again, plays a crucial role. We need to teach a more complete and nuanced history of race and racial mixing, one that acknowledges the violence and oppression of the past while also celebrating the resilience and creativity of those who have challenged racial boundaries.

In science and medicine, we must continue to challenge the misuse of genetic concepts to support racist ideologies. This means promoting a more sophisticated understanding of human genetic variation and its relationship (or lack thereof) to socially constructed racial categories.

Finally, we must recognize that dismantling the technology of mixing isn’t about creating a “colorblind” society that ignores racial differences. Rather, it’s about creating a society that can acknowledge and celebrate human diversity without reifying oppressive racial categories. As Audre Lorde reminds us: “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.”

As we move forward in our exploration of race technology, we’ll next examine the fourth component: spacing. This technology, which deals with the physical and social separation of racial groups, interacts closely with the technology of mixing. By understanding how these technologies work together, we can develop more effective strategies for dismantling the system of racial oppression as a whole.

Until then, I encourage you to reflect on how ideas about racial mixing have shaped your own experiences and perceptions. Consider the stories of mixing in your own family history, the messages you’ve received about interracial relationships, and how these ideas intersect with other aspects of identity like gender, class, and nationality. By bringing these often unexamined assumptions into the light, we take the first step towards transforming them.

Enjoying Our Content?

Become a member of our Patreon to get the latest research on Racial Black Trauma and learn the hidden science behind why Black people are God’s/Amma’s greatest creation! https://www.patreon.com/revshock. Or buy Rev. SHOCK a Coffee! https://bit.ly/3yg5D7A

Book A Discovery Call

Are you ready to SHOCKtrauma? Click HERE now to book a discovery call with Rev. Dr. Philippe SHOCK Matthews

Get Social with Doc SHOCK:

SHOCKmetaphysics.com

Healing Racial Black Trauma in the Diaspora from the MAAFA

Part 3: The Race Technology of Mixing

Enjoying Our Content?

Book A Discovery Call

Get Social with Doc SHOCK:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply