THEORIES ABOUT BLACK-WHITE INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE
Source: Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, Oct92, Vol.
20 Issue 4, p150, 8p
Author(s): Davidson, Jeannette R.

Abstract: Discusses the need for clinicians to expose negative
biases in theories about interracial relationships and to direct the
attention of couples and families toward relationship strengths.
Discussion of theories on interracial marriages; Suggestions for
clinicians in addressing racial issues and psychological issues;
Identification of psychological problems of individuals in interracial
marriages.


Clinicians need to expose negative biases in theories about interfacial
relationships and direct the attention of couples and their families
toward relationship strengths.

Recent census figures suggest that as of 1988 there were approximately
218,000 Black-White interracial marriages in the United States. This
figure supports the general consensus that the number of persons
intermarrying has been on the increase in the past two decades
(Aldridge, 1978; Brown, 1987; Porterfield, 1978; Porterfield, 1982).
Generally the increase is attributed to progress in civil rights. the
increased opportunities open to Black persons, and the expansion of
transracial social contacts (Bruce & Rodman, 1973; "Black Women/White
Men," 1982; Hullum, 1982; McKinley, 1980; Porterfield, 1978;
Porterfield, 1982; Williamson, 1980).

Historically, Black-White interracial marriage has been the most
controversial of all types of intermarriage in the United States
(Porterfield, 1982). A total of 16 states maintained laws against
interracial marriage until the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that such
laws were unconstitutional because they violated the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Despite the increase in Black-White interracial marriages, a taboo
against such marriages remains (Barol et al., 1983; Brandell, 1988:
Hullum, 1982; Porterfield, 1982). Recent media attention to Black-White
intermarriages has highlighted the intensity of the debate. Porterfield
(1982) observed that, in both popular and professional circles, the
notion is fostered that those who contract mixed marriages are somehow
different in motivation than those in same-race marriages.

Even though a number of writers (e.g., Brandell, 1988; Brown, 1987:
Brown, 1989; Porterfield, 1982; Sebring, 1985; Shackford. 1984) have
cited multiple problems that often face interracial couples in the
United States, clinical professionals such as counselors,
psychotherapists, and social workers. have paid little attention to
interracial marriage. Because marriage is a social arrangement as well
as an interpersonal agreement between two individuals, it is reasonable
to assume that couples will have extra difficulties keeping their
marriages viable when there is a nonsupportive social environment.

In the case of Black-White interracial marriages, the lack of social
support can be expected to range from open hostility or disdain to
slight suspicion about the validity or appropriateness of the marital
union. Thus, even when the interracial family system itself is
functional. the continued negative attitudes held about interracial
couples and their children and the prejudiced behavior the couples may
face in the workplace, in housing, with friends, and with family (Brown,
1987; Porterfield, 1978: Porterfield, 1982) set the stage for
difficulties in personal and social adjustment.

Given these factors, and the apparent resurgence of blatant racism, as
depicted recently in the media, clinicians may anticipate more
interracial couples and their families to be in need of therapeutic
intervention. If assistance is sought, clinical professionals need to be
prepared to approach such clients with a clear and distinct
understanding of the issues at hand.

This article first directs attention to a number of theories about
Black-White interracial marriage found in the literature of the social
sciences. These theories suggest that couples who marry interracially
generally have ulterior motives for doing so. The soundness of these
theories is refuted, and suggestions are then presented for clinicians
working with interracial couples and their extended families.


THEORIES ABOUT BLACK-WHITE INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE


Some theories suggest that individuals who choose to marry interracially
have ulterior motives that may be hidden or even unconscious in nature.
The proponents of these theories try to show that (a) pathological
deviance or (b) an abnormal level of rebellion are present. Aldridge
(1978) and Porterfield (1973) reported that, in the past, people
commonly believed that unconscious, bizarre reasons would lead people to
contemplate interfacial dating and marriage. Even now, such theorizing
about pathology continues. Interracial couples are hypothesized as
having deep-seated resentment of their parents and desire to give them
pain or as having a desire for self-degradation (Hullum, 1982). Spaights
and Dixon (1984) characterize interracial couples as personally insecure
and self-loathing.

Another theoretical perspective suggests that persons who marry
interracially are rebelling against their families. Rather than
cooperating with the social order represented by their families, the
interracially married person (generally the White partner) is depicted
as if he or she is suffering from "oppositional defiance disorder." It
is proposed that such an individual is attempting to show how liberal he
or she is (Aldridge, 1978; Hullum, 1982; Spaights & Dixon, 1984),
perhaps in response to a staid or rigid system in the family of origin.

In addition, a number of theories about interracial couples suggest more
conscious ulterior motives. These can be grouped as motives that stem
from (a) sexual curiosity, preoccupation, or revenge; (b) the desire for
social or economic mobility; and (c) exhibitionism.

One perspective presented in the literature is that individuals tenet to
be sexually curious about people of a different race (Aldridge, 1978:
Berry & Blassingame, 1982). When people date interracially, their
relationship is typically regarded as being primarily sexual in nature.
whereas same-race dating might be thought of as based on socialization
needs or on friendship. White women who have dated Black men are often
regarded as morally deviant (Petroni, 1973). Additionally. there has
been continuous theorizing about the Black man's so-called preoccupation
with the "forbidden" White woman, (Berry & Blassingame, 1982;
Porterfield, 1973). Spaights and Dixon (1984). taking a different,
perhaps even more pernicious angle, theorize that the Black man's
motivation is to denigrate the White woman and take revenge on the White
man.

Other theories emphasizing economic and social class differences have
been advanced in relation to Black-White interracial marriage. For
example, Davis (1941) proposed that lower class White women exchanged
their "high caste" racial status for the higher socioeconomic status
achieved through marrying higher class Black men. Now it is theorized
that Black women who marry White men do so for social and economic gain,
with the assumption being that they believe White men can offer them
upward social mobility. whereas the oppressed Black man cannot ("Black
Women/White Men," 1982; Spaights & Dixon, 1984), Spaights and Dixon
(1984) suggested that Blacks have romantic alliances with Whites in
order to exploit them economically.

Finally, a number of celebrities (e.g., Diana Ross, Sidney Poitier, and
Lena Home) have engaged in Black-White interracial marriages. In view of
that fact, it has been theorized that interracial marriages may be
manifestations of exhibitionistic tendencies ("Black Women/White Men,"
1982).


SUGGESTIONS FOR CLINICIANS


Brown (1987) warned that the clinical professional may have racist
attitudes that can influence therapeutic intervention. If this is so,
myths about interracial marriage must be addressed in order for clinical
strategies with interracial couples to be unbiased. One place to begin
correcting a racist outlook on interracial marriage is to expose the
negative biases of these theories about motivation.

Thus, in the clinical situation when the issues of pathology; rebellion;
sexual curiosity, preoccupation, or revenge; social or economic
mobility: and exhibitionism are raised, clinicians must be cognizant
first that these racist formulations are not supported by empirical
evidence. They must understand that, as Porterfield explained, "much of
the mysticism and confusion surrounding interracial sexual relations in
the United States can be traced to the unique condition of slavery"
(1978,p. 2). In that historical context, interracial marriage has been
regarded as both sinful and biologically unsound (Hullum, 1982;
McKinley, 1980; Porterfield, 1978).

No scientific evidence supports the idea that interracially married
persons are psychologically unstable or rebellious (Aldridge, 1978;
Porterfield, 1982). Theories about sexual curiosity, preoccupation, and
revenge are undermined by clear evidence showing that only 3% of Black
men marry interracially (Poussaint, 1982) and that of all racial groups
in the United States, Blacks have the lowest rates of intermarriage
(McLemore, 1991; Tucker & Mitchell-Kernan, 1990). Theories about social
class are contradicted by empirical data demonstrating that interfacial
couples are almost always from similar economic, social and educational
backgrounds (Aldridge, 1978; Blau, Becker & Fitzpatrick, 1984:
Porterfield, 1982; Poussaint, 1983). Regarding charges of exhibitionism,
the reality is that many interracial relationships are characterized by
secrecy (Brown, 1989) to protect the couple from the glare and hostility
of the greater social order.

The prudent course for clinicians to follow when faced with these issues
of interracial marriage in the therapeutic setting is first to determine
who owns the "problem" and then to focus on the strengths of the couple.
It may be advisable to rule out the presence of ulterior motives,
whether hidden or blatant. Certainly it is important for the clinician
to help the couple clarify the true nature of their relationship and to
normalize the couple's responses and attraction.


Problem Identification


If one (or both) of the members in the couple is accused of being
pathological in making the choice of interfacial marriage, the clinician
needs to explore the individual's past to determine if there have been
significant life events or crises with an explicit racial overtone that
may have left unresolved and ambivalent feelings in the individual. If
there are troubling events from the past (e.g., sexual trauma at the
hands of an other-race perpetrator) the clinician should determine if
certain defense mechanisms (e.g., reaction formation, identification
with the aggressor) can be addressed.

If any hidden agenda for the marriage is exposed, the couple will then
benefit from seeing whether their love, common values, and mutual goals
are strong enough to sustain a marital bond. The suggestion that the
person choosing to marry interracially is, necessarily, the victim of
some self-defeating desire for a taboo relationship or is a helpless
casualty of unconscious processes needs to be put to rest.

Similar clinical considerations emerge when the ulterior motive of
rebellion is cited or suspected as exerting an undue force on the
decision to marry. In these cases, it is useful to examine possible
oppositional traits. If there is a general response pattern of defiance
of authority, hostile dependency, or complicated separation and
attachment issues, these matters will need to be confronted. Of course,
there is good reason to suspect that when extended families are not
supportive of the interracial marriage, some level of rebellion is
needed for the marrying partner to self-differentiate. It should neither
be assumed that the differentiation itself is dysfunctional nor that the
rebellion is a sufficient condition for the couple choosing to marry.

In dealing with issues about sexual curiosity, couples may consider how
long-lasting they expect their relationship to be and whether their
alleged curiosity is diminishing, leaving the relationship without spark
or interest. Sexual preoccupation, or the reduction of one's spouse to
the status of a sexual object, is a problem that exists in some
same-race marriages and, no doubt, in some interracial marriages. As
such, it should be dealt with primarily as a relationship dilemma and
not a racial issue. Of course, the reality is that interracially married
couples are most likely to have been engaging in sexual relations for
some time (at least since their marriage) and generally are beyond being
curious, if that ever was a factor. As in most relationships, healthy
sexual adjustment involves moving from sexual curiosity to genuine
intimacy.

When examining the issue of social or economic mobility, it is
reasonable to keep in perspective the fact that people generally want to
"marry up," or to marry their equal, rather than otherwise. If the
alleged social or economic climbing is detrimental to either of the
partners, then the couple will need to weigh this factor in the balance
of their overall desire to marry. Common sense dictates that individuals
should examine whether they are motivated to marry principally for
profit and, if so, to see the potential pitfalls in that decision.

Often when a person is overtly exhibitionistic he or she is seeking
approval or attention. To begin to rule out exhibitionism as the
motivation for interracial marriage. the clinician could examine whether
the individuals involved no longer want or are attracted to their
partner after they have been seen in public and have observed some
response, or if that public response is necessary to sustain interest in
their partner. In fact, some level of secrecy is more often the norm
with interracial couples than is exhibitionism, and as such. is the
problem with which most couples have to contend. Some willingness to
exhibit may be, in many cases, a healthier alternative.

If and when the couple's so-called ulterior motives are ruled out, the
clinical professional may work with the couple and their family members
(if they are still willing to be involved) to determine who owns which
part of the problem about interracial marriage. Family members may have
to examine whether their accusations about ulterior motives expose.
their racism rather than indicate weakness in the interfacial couple's
decision to marry. Also, because prejudice against Black-White
interracial unions remains a societal problem, couples and their
families need to be aware that in accepting such relationships, they are
dealing on higher moral ground than are many other members of society
and that to do so brings with it higher demands.


Focusing on Strengths of the Couple


When couples are told that their love is not legitimate but is the
product of craziness or rebellion against parents, is based in sexual
curiosity or perversity, is stimulated by the desire for material or
social gain, or is happening only for shock value, the effect may be
devastating. Clinical professionals must empathize with and give
validation to the feelings of any couple facing such an onslaught and
then should direct attention to the couple's strengths.

Black-White couples may find encouragement and strength by the
clinician's shifting the focus away from the suspicions about ulterior
motives, toward their true reasons for being together. Generally, like
couples of the same race, interracial couples marry because of love;
compatibility; and shared interests, values, and ideas (Brown, 1987;
Porterfield, 1978; Porterfield, 1982). In fact, even unsupportive family
members often consider the partners perfectly suited for each other,
except for their racial dissimilarity. The clinical professional, then,
would do well to emphasize the similarities in the relationship. At the
same time, a strength exists in the individuals who have transcended
racial bias in their most intimate relationship and have been able to
appreciate their interpersonal differences.

Even in the situation in which a couple recognizes some degree of truth
in certain charges about ulterior motives, the clinician can help put
their responses into perspective. Rebelling against one's parents,
hoping to improve one's economic situation, or wishing to gain
attention, for example, are not unique to Black-White marriages. Many
successful marriages have an irrational component, but Black-White
unions cannot be held as exemplary in this regard.


CONCLUSION


When clinicians work with interracial couples and their families, they
need to have a critical awareness of the theoretical perspectives still
presented, in the literature, concerning motivations for Black-White
interfacial marriage. They must recognize the inherent racial bias of
these theories and guard against their influence in the therapeutic
context if they are to work without prejudice. Certainly, if a
particular marriage is characterized by misguided motives it should be
examined on an individual case basis, but to generalize that Black-White
couples have ulterior motives is clinically untenable.


REFERENCES


Aldridge, D. (1978) Interracial marriages: Empirical and theoretical
consideration. Journal of Black Studies. 8(3), 355-368.

Barol B., Camper, D., Piggot, C., Nadolski, R., Sarris, M., Wares. D., &
Blossom. T. (1983. March). Why they chose separate tables. Newsweek on
Campus. pp. 4-14.

Berry, M. F., & Blassingame, J. W. (1982). Long memory: The Black
experience in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Black women/White men. (1982,August). Ebony. pp. 78-82.

Blau, P.M., Beeker. K. C., & Fitzpatrick. K. M. (1984). Intersecting
social affiliations and intermarriage. Social Forces. 62(3), 585-606.

Brandell, J. R. (1988). Treatment of the biracial child: Theoretical and
clinical issues. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development.
16. 176-187.

Brown, J. A. (1987). Casework contacts with Black-White couples. Social
Casework. 65. 24-29.

Brown, P. (1989). Black-White interracial marriages: A historical
analysis. The Journal of Intergroup Relations, 16(3 & 4), 26-36.

Bruce, J., & Rodman, H. (1973). Black-White marriages in the United
States: A review of the empirical literature. In R. Stuart & L. Abt
(Eds.), Interracial marriage: Expectations and realities (pp. 147-159).
New York: Grossman Publishers.

Davis, K. (1941). Intermarriage in caste societies. American
Anthropologist. 43, 376-395.

Hullum, E. (1982,July-August). Black and White and wed all over.
Missions USA, pp. 67-69.

McKinley, C. (1980). Custody disputes following the dissolution of
interracial marriages: Best interest of the child or Judicial racism?
journal of Family Law. 19(1), 97-136.

McLemore, S. D. (1991). Racial and ethnic relations in America (3rd
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Petroni, F. A. (1973). Interracial dating--the price is high. In R.
Stuart & L. Abt (Eds.), Interracial marriage: Expectations and realities
(pp. 125-145). New York: Grossman Publishers.

Porterfield, E. (1973,January). Mixed marriage. Psychology Today. pp.
71-78.

Porterfield, E, (1978). Black and White mixed marriages. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.

Porterfield, E. (1982). Black-American intermarriage in the United
States. Marriage and Family Review, 5(1), 17-34.

Poussaint, A. C. (1982,August). What every Black woman should know about
Black men. Ebony, pp. 36-40.

Poussaint, A. C. (1983,August). Black men-White women: An update. Ebony.
pp. 124, 126-128.

Sebring, D. (1985). Considerations in counseling interracial children.
Journal of Non-White Concerns in Personnel and Guidance, 13, 3-9.

Shackford, K. (1984). Interracial children: Growing up healthy in an
unhealthy society. Interracial Books for Children Bulletin. 15, 4-6.

Spaights, E., & Dixon. H. E. (1984). Socio-psychological dynamics in
pathological Black-White romantic alliances. Journal of Instructional
Psychology. 11(3). 132-138.

Tucker, M. B.. & Mitchell-Kernan. C. (1990). New trends in Black
American interfacial marriage: The social structural context. Journal of
Marriage and The Family. 52. 209-218.

Williamson, J. (1980). New people: Miscegenation and mulattoes in the
U.S. New York: The Free Press.

~~~~~~~~

By Jeanette R. Davidson

Jeanette R. Davidson is an assistant professor of social work at the
University of North Texas. Denton.