Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hypatia.
http://www.jstor.org
It'sAll In the Family:Intersections
of Gender,Race,andNation
PATRICIAHILLCOLLINS
MANUFACTURING HIERARCHY
NATURALIZED
The "family values" that underlie the traditional family ideal work to
naturalizeU.S. hierarchies of gender, age, and sexuality. For example, the
traditionalfamilyideal assumesa male headshipthat privilegesand naturalizes
masculinityas a sourceof authority.Similarly,parentalcontrol over dependent
children reproduces age and seniority as fundamental principles of social
organization. Moreover, gender and age mutually construct one another;
motherscomplywith fathers,sistersdeferto brothers,all with the understand-
ing that boys submit to maternalauthorityuntil they become men. Working
in tandem with these mutually constructing age and gender hierarchiesare
comparable ideas concerning sexuality. Predicated on assumptions of
heterosexism, the invisibility of gay, lesbian, and bisexual sexualities in the
traditional family ideal obscures these sexualities and keeps them hidden.
Regardlessof how individualfamiliesgrapplewith these hierarchicalnotions,
they remainthe received wisdomto be confronted.
In the United States, naturalizedhierarchiesof genderand age are interwo-
ven with correspondingracialhierarchies,regardlessof whether racialhierar-
chies are justified with reference to biological, genetic differences or to
immutableculturaldifferences(Goldberg 1993). The logic of the traditional
family ideal can be used to explain race relations.One way that this occurs is
when racial inequality becomes explained using family roles. For example,
racialideologies that portraypeople of color as intellectuallyunderdeveloped,
uncivilizedchildren requireparallelideas that constructWhites as intellectu-
ally mature,civilized adults.When appliedto race, familyrhetoricthat deems
adultsmore developed than children, and thus entitled to greaterpower,uses
naturalizedideas about age and authorityto legitimateracialhierarchy.Com-
bining age and genderhierarchiesaddsadditionalcomplexity.WhereasWhite
men and White women enjoy sharedracialprivilegesprovidedby Whiteness,
within the racialboundaryof Whiteness,women areexpected to deferto men.
People of color have not been immunefromthis same logic. Within the frame
of race as family,women of subordinatedracial groupsdefer to men of their
groups,often to supportmen'sstrugglesin dealing with racism.
The complexities attached to these relationshipsof age, gender,and race
coalesce in that the so-callednaturalhierarchypromulgatedby the traditional
family ideal bears striking resemblanceto social hierarchiesin U.S. society
overall. White men dominate in positions of power, aided by their White
female helpmates,both workingtogether to administerto allegedlyless-qual-
ified people of color who themselves strugglewith the same family rhetoric.
With racial ideologies and practicesso reliant on family for meaning, family
writ large becomes race. Within racial discourse,just as families can be seen
naturallyoccurring,biologically linked entities who share common interests,
Whites, Blacks,Native Americans, and other "races"of any given historical
period can also be seen this way. The actual racial categories of any given
period matter less than the persistent belief in race itself as an enduring
66 Hypatia
feminist analysesthat discreditthe home as a safe place for women, this myth
seems deeply entrenched in U.S. culture (Coontz 1992).
A similarlogic concerning place, space, and territoryconstructsracialized
space in the United States.5Justas the value attachedto actualfamiliesreflects
their placement in racial and social class hierarchies, the neighborhoods
housing these families demonstratecomparableinequalities.Assumptionsof
race- and class-segregatedspace mandatethat U.S. familiesand the neighbor-
hoods where they reside be kept separate. Just as crafting a family from
individualsfrom diverse racial, ethnic, religious or class backgroundsis dis-
couraged,mixing differentraceswithin one neighborhoodis frownedupon. As
mini-nation-states,neighborhoodsallegedly operate best when racial and/or
class homogeneity prevails.Assigning Whites, Blacks,and Latinos their own
separatespaces reflects effortsto maintain a geographic,racial purity.As the
dominant group, Whites continue to supportlegal and extra-legalmeasures
that segregateAfrican-Americans,Native Americans, Mexican-Americans,
PuertoRicans, and other similargroups,therebyperpetuatingculturalnorms
about desirabilityof racialpurityin schools, neighborhoods,and public facili-
ties. Forexample,tactics such as the continual White flight out of inner cities,
deploying restrictive zoning in suburbancommunities in order to restrict
low-income housing, and shifting White children into private institutions in
the face of increasinglycoloredschools effectivelymaintainraciallysegregated
home spaces for White men, women, and children. This belief in segregated
physicalspacesalso has parallelsto ideasabout segregatedsocial and symbolic
spaces. For example, lucrative professionalcategories remain largely White
and male, in part,becausepeople of color are seen as less capableof entering
these spaces. Similarly,keeping school curriculafocused on the exploits of
Whites representsanother example of ideas about segregatedspaces mapped
on symbolicspace. Overall, racial segregationof actual physical space fosters
multiple forms of political, economic, and social segregation (Massey and
Denton 1993).
Securing a people's"homeland"or national territoryhas long been impor-
tant to nationalist aspirations (Anthias and Yuval-Davis 1992; Calhoun
1993). After its successfulanticolonial struggleagainstEnglandand its forma-
tion as a nation-state, the United States pursueda sustainedimperialistpolicy
in order to acquire much of the land that defines its current borders.This
historyof conquest illustratesthe significanceof propertyin relationsof space,
place, and territory.Moreover,just as householdsand neighborhoodsare seen
as needing protection from outsiders,maintaining the integrity of national
bordershas long formed a pillar of U.S. foreign policy. Because the United
States has operatedas a dominant world powersince WorldWar II, shielding
its own home "soil"fromwarfarehas been a minor theme. Instead,protecting
so-called American interestshas been more prominent. Individualsand busi-
PatriciaHill Collins 69
RACE,AND NATION
ON "BLOODTIES":FAMILY,
When seen in this frameworkthat links family, race, and nation, public
policies of all sorts take on new meaning. An example is the historical
similarity between the adoption of children and the process of acquiring
citizenship. When children are screened for their suitability for adoption,
factorssuch as their racial,religious,and ethnic backgroundcarrya prominent
weight. Youngerchildren, who allegedly are less socialized,are typicallypre-
ferredover older ones. When adoptions are finalized,such children become
"naturalized"and legally indistinguishablefromchildren born into the family
unit. In a similar fashion, immigrationpolicies screen potential citizens in
terms of how well they match the biological make-up of the U.S. national
family.Historically,immigrationpolicies have reflected the perceived racial,
ethnic, and laborneeds of a domesticpolitical economy that routinelydiscrim-
inated against people of color (Takaki 1993). Those who wish to become
adopted citizens must undergo a socialization process whereby they study
importantelements of U.S. culture. This socializationprocess aims to trans-
form so-called aliens into bona fide U.S. citizens who are indistinguishable
from those born in the United States.
women may have been first-classU.S. citizens, but their experiences reveal
their second-classtreatment.
FAMILYGENEALOGY:
AND THEFAMILY
INHERITANCE WAGE
FAMILYPLANNING
eugenic thinking, also has a long history in the United States. The third
feature of eugenic thinking, the direct control of different racial groups
through various measuresalso is present in U.S. politics. So-called positive
eugenic-efforts to increasereproductionamong the better groupswho alleg-
edly carried the outstanding qualities of their group in their genes-and
negative eugenic-efforts to prevent the propagation by less desirable
groups-also have affectedU.S. public policy.
While now seen as an embarrassment,past ideasconcering eugenic gained
considerable influence in the United States. As Haller points out, Francis
Galton, the founder of the eugenic movement in England, believed that
"Anglo-Saxonsfar outrankedthe Negroes of Africa, who in turn outranked
the Australian aborigines,who outrankednobody. Because he believed that
large innate differencesbetween races existed, Galton felt that a programto
raise the inherent abilities of mankind involved the replacementof inferior
races by the superior"(Haller 1984, 11). Galton's ideas provedpopularin the
raciallysegregatedUnited States. U.S. eugenic laws precededby twenty years
the sterilizationlaws of other countries,and were seen as pioneeringventures
by eugenicists abroad.The U.S. SupremeCourt's1927 Buckvs. Belldecision
held that sterilizationfell within the police power of the state. Reflecting the
majorityopinion, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote,
It would be strangeif it could not call upon those who already
sap the strengthof the state for these lessersacrifices,often not
felt to be such by those concerned,in orderto preventourbeing
swamped by incompetence. It is better for all the world, if
insteadof waitingfortheir imbecility,society can preventthose
who are manifestlyunfit fromcontinuing their kind. The prin-
ciple that sustainscompulsoryvaccination is broadenough to
cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.... Three generations of
imbeciles is enough. (Haller 1984, 139)
Given this intellectual context, differentialpopulation policies developed
for differentsegmentsof the U.S. populationemerge in direct relation to any
group'sperceived value within the nation-state.7In periodsof profoundsocial
change, such as the massive Europeanmigrationthat preceded the Buck vs.
Bell decision, eugenic philosophies can reemerge. With the civil rights,
women's,anti-war,and other social movementsof the 1950sand 1960s,as well
as the growingnonwhite immigrantpopulation of the 1970s and 1980s, the
United States experiencedprofoundchange. Omi and Winant (1994) inter-
pret the expanding conservative social projects that emerged during this
period as a direct responseto the perceived gains of Blacks and women. One
core feature characterizingthe rhetoric of social projects of the Right was a
return to the family values of the traditionalU.S. family. By associatingthe
ideal familywith U.S. national interests,these movementslinked those inter-
PatriciaHill Collins 77
RECLAIMING
FAMILY
nation. The Afrocentric yearningfor a homeland for the Black racial family
and the construction of a mythical Africa to serve this purposespeaksto the
use of this construct.Familylanguagealso shapeseverydayinteractions:Afri-
can-American strangersoften referto one another as "brother"and "sister";
some Blackmen referto each other as "bloods."In hip-hop culture,"homies"
are Black males from one's neighborhood,or home community.Within this
political framework,Whites remainthe strangers,the outsiderswho arecasti-
gated in Black political thought. Ironically,though the popularpress often
associatesthe traditionalfamily ideal with conservativepolitical projects,this
rhetoric finds a home in what many African-Americansconsider to be the
most radicalof Blackpolitical theories (Appiah 1992; Gilroy 1993).
Feministpolitics can contain similarcontradictionsregardingfamily.U.S.
feministshave made importantcontributionsin analyzinghow the traditional
family ideal harms women. However, feminism's longing for a sisterhood
among women has proved difficult to sustain in the context of U.S. race and
class politics. Assumptions of an idealized sisterhood floundered because
women of color, among others, questioned their place in the feminist family.
Even moresignificantis the U.S. media'sroutinecharacterizationof feminism
as anti-family.Although much of the backlashagainst feminism claims that
U.S. feminists are anti-family,many women who are not partof this backlash
probablyremainsuspiciousof any political movement that questionssuch an
important social institution by appearingto dismiss it. This is unfortunate,
becausefamilyrhetoricoften formsa powerfullanguageto organizepeople for
a varietyof ends.
Given the powerof familyas ideologicalconstructionand principleof social
organization,Blacknationalist,feminist,and other political movementsin the
United States dedicatedto challengingsocial inequalitymight considerrecast-
ing intersectional understandingsof family in ways that do not reproduce
inequality.Insteadof engagingin endlesscriticism,reclaimingthe languageof
family for democratic ends and transformingthe very conception of family
itself might provide a more usefulapproach.
NOTES
I would like to thank the editorsof this volume and four anonymousreviewersfor
theirhelpfulcommentson an earlierdraftof thisessay.I alsothankthe studentsat the
University of Cincinnati in my graduateseminar "Genderand Intersectionality"for
their insightfulideas.
1. By dislodgingbeliefs in the naturalnessor normalityof any one family form,
feminist scholarshipanalyzesthe significance of specific notions of family to gender
oppression(Thorne 1992). As Stephanie Coontz (1992) reports,this traditionalfamily
ideal never existed, even duringthe 1950s, a decade that is often assumedto be the era
of its realization.Feministanthropologistsalso challenge the traditionalfamilyideal by
Patricia Hill Collins 79
7. For extended discussionsof this concept, see the essays in Bridenthalet al.
(1984) WhenBiologyBecameDestiny:Womenin WeimarandNazi Germany.This volume
contains one of the best discussionsI have encounteredof the links between gender,
social class, race, and nation, when policies were actuallyimplementedin one nation-
state.
REFERENCES
Andersen, MargaretL. 1991. Feminism and the American family ideal. Journalof
Comparative FamilyStudies22(2)(Summer): 235-46.
Anthias, Floya, and Nira Yuval-Davis.1992. Racializedboundaries:
Race,nation,gender,
colourandclassin theanti-raciststruggle.New York:Routledge.
Appiah, KwameAnthony. 1992. In myfather'shouse:Africain thephilosophy of culture.
New York:OxfordUniversity Press.
Brewer,Rose. 1994. Race, genderand US state welfarepolicy:The nexus of inequality
forAfricanAmericanfamilies.In Color,classandcountry:Experiences of gender,ed.
Gay Youngand Bette Dickerson.London:Zed Books.
Bridenthal,Renate, Atina Grossmann,and Marion Kaplan, eds. 1984. When biology
becamedestiny:Womenin WeimarandNazi Germany.New York:Monthly Review
Press.
Calhoun, Craig. 1993. Nationalism and ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology19:
211-39.
Collier,Jane,Michelle Z. Rosaldo,and Sylvia Yanagisako.1992. Is there a family?:New
anthropologicalviews. In Rethinking thefamily.See Thorne and Yalom 1992.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Blackfeministthought:Knowledge,consciousness,and the
politicsof empowerment. New York:Routledge,Chapmanand Hall.
1997. African-Americanwomen and economic justice:A preliminaryanalysis
of wealth, family, and Black social class. Universityof CincinnatiLaw Review
65(3)(Spring): 825-52.
.1998. Fightingwords:African-American womenandthesearchforjustice.Minne-
apolis:University of Minnesota Press.
Combahee River Collective. 1982. A Black feminist statement. In But someof us are
brave,ed. Gloria T. Hull, PatriciaBell Scott, and BarbaraSmith. Old Westbury,
NY: FeministPress.
Coontz, Stephanie. 1992. Thewaywe neverwere:Americanfamiliesandthenostalgiatrap.
New York:Basic Books.
Crenshaw,Kimberle. 1991. Mapping the margins:Intersectionality,identity politics,
and violence againstwomen of color. StanfordLawReview43(6): 1241-99.
Daniels, Jessie. 1997. Whitelies.New York:Routledge.
Davis, Angela Y. 1981. Women,race, andclass.New York:RandomHouse.
Dill, Bonnie Thorton. 1988. Our mothers' grief: Racial ethnic women and the
maintenanceof families.Journalof FamilyHistory13(4): 415-31.
Foucault, Michel. 1979. Disciplineand punish: The birthof the prison.New York:
Schocken.
Frankenberg,Ruth. 1993. Thesocialconstruction of whiteness:Whitewomen,racematters.
Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
Patricia Hill Collins 81
Gilroy, Paul. 1993. It's a family affair:Black culture and the trope of kinship. In Small
acts:Thoughtson thepoliticsof Blackcultures.New York:Serpent'sTail.
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1992. Fromservitudeto service work:Historicalcontinuities
in the racialdivision of paid reproductivelabor.Signs18(1): 1-43.
Goldberg, David Theo. 1993. Racist culture:Philosophyand the politicsof meaning.
Cambridge,MA: Blackwell.
Gordon, Linda. 1994. Pitiedbut not entitled:Singlemothersand the historyof welfare.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
Gould, Stephen Jay.1981. The mismeasure of man.New York:W. W. Norton.
Haller,MarkH. 1984 [1963]. Eugenics:Hereditarian attitudesin Americanthought.New
Brunswick:RutgersUniversity Press.
Haraway,Donna. 1989. Primatevisions:Gender,race, and naturein theworldof modem
science.New York:Routledge,Chapmanand Hall.
Heng, Geraldine,and JanadasDevan. 1992. State fatherhood:The politics of nation-
alism, sexualityand race in Singapore.In Nationalismsandsexualities,ed. Andrew
Parker,MaryRusso,Doris Sommerand PatriciaYaeger.New York:Routledge.
Jackson, Peter, and Jan Penrose. 1993. Introduction:Placing "race"and nation. In
Constructions of race,placeandnation,ed. P.Jacksonand J. Penrose.Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Kuumba, Monica Bahati. 1993. Perpetuating neo-colonialism through population
control: South Africa and the United States. AfricaToday40(3): 79-85.
Lorde,Audre. 1984. Sisteroutsider.Trumansberg,NY: CrossingPress.
Massey,Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. Americanapartheid:Segregation and
themakingof theunderclass.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
McClintock, Anne. 1995. Imperialleather.New York:Routledge.
Nsiah-Jefferson,Laurie. 1989. Reproductive laws, women of color, and low-income
women. In Reproductive lawsfor the 1990s, ed. SherrillCohen and Nadine Taub.
Clifton, NJ: HumanaPress.
Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1995. Blackwealth/Whitewealth:A new
perspective on racialinequality.New York:Routledge.
Omi, Michael, and HowardWinant. 1994. Racialformationin the UnitedStates:From
the 1960s to the 1990s. New York:Routledge.
Parker,Andrew, MaryRusso, Doris Sommer,and PatriciaYaeger,eds. 1992. National-
ismsandsexualities.New York:Routledge.
Proctor,RobertN. 1988. Racialhygiene:MedicineundertheNazis. Cambridge:Harvard
University Press.
Quadagno,Jill. 1994. The colorof welfare:How racismunderminedthe war on poverty.
New York:OxfordUniversity Press.
Raymond,Janice. 1993. Womenas wombs:Reproductive and the battleover
technologies
women'sfreedom.San Francisco:HarperSan Francisco.
Slack, JenniferDaryl. 1996. The theoryand method of articulationin culturalstudies.
In StuartHall: Criticaldialoguesin culturalstudies,ed. David Morley and Kuan-
Hsing Chen. New York:Routledge.
Smith, Barbara,ed. 1983. Home girls:A Blackfeministanthology.New York:Kitchen
Table Press.
Stacey,Judith. 1992. Backwardtowardthe postmodem family:Reflections on gender,
kinship, and class in the Silicon Valley.In Rethinkingthefamily.See Thore and
Yalom 1992.
82 Hypatia