In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

While the last chapter looked at how place directly and actively teaches children about race, this chapter theorizes the indirect role of place in children’s comprehensive racial learning. Specifically, I will argue that place influences what mothers choose to teach their children about race and racism. First, by comparing the racial socialization message of the mothers in this study with a smaller pilot sample of parents in the San Francisco Bay Area, I will argue that the Detroit mothers send fewer direct verbal messages about black history, leadership, creative expression, beauty, and more, not because they do not find such things important but because place does it for them. Second, the influence of place is further evidenced in the fact that, while all of the mothers suggested that place was their “partner” in teaching their children about race and racism, some mothers see it as a positive partner—providing a “racial safe space” for their children—while others consider it a detrimental partner— acting as a “false shield” and leaving their children unprepared for the racism they will confront if they leave Detroit. Although not entirely cut-and-dried, the mothers who themselves grew up in Detroit tend toward the former, while the mothers who grew up elsewhere are the strongest voices supporting the latter. Therefore, place shows yet another form of influence—whether or not the mother herself grew up in Detroit influences how she engages in racial socialization. Two Types of Messages: Procultural and Responsive Based on the mothers’ interviews, I outline a model of maternal racial socialization using two broad categories—responsive and procultural—to describe the mothers’ messages. As Diane Hughes and her colleagues (2006, 749) note, scholars in the field of racial socialization have yet to agree upon a common 77 4 Place Matters Shaping Mothers’ Messages typology for discussing types of familial racial socialization messages. The model I propose here adds to the discussion (see, for example, Hughes 2003; Stevenson et al. 2005). For example, the broad categories of responsive and procultural racial socialization overlap with and build upon Howard Stevenson’s (1995) discussion of “creative” and “reactive” racial socialization, Wade Boykin and Constance Ellison’s (1995) discussion of “tricultural socialization ,” and Hughes’s (2003) discussion of “cultural socialization” and “preparation for bias.” In my model, responsive racial socialization messages are those that parents use to counter negative notions of blackness coming from society. Procultural racial socialization messages focus on the value of African and African American heritage in and of itself and are not in response to racism. Some may argue that all racial socialization, even that about African American history, culture, and heritage, is in response to racism; otherwise, it would not be necessary. I posit we need a model that presents a balanced consideration of familial agency and structural constraints and recognizes that “normal Black behavior and consciousness is not merely a reaction to adverse environmental elements” (Parham et al. 1999, 43). As Ralph Ellison notes in his 1964 critique of Gunnar Myrdal’s study of US race relations, An American Dilemma, African Americans have not “live[d] and develop[ed] for over three hundred years simply by reacting” (Ellison [1964] 1995, 315, emphasis in original). Stevenson (1995) makes a similar argument in relationship to racial socialization. He writes, “Instead of viewing racial socialization as preparing the child only for oppressive experiences (e.g., protective African American culture), it is proposed that these processes also include teaching children how to be proud of their culture because its substance is historic, African derived, culturally empowering, and not dependent on oppressive experiences” (1995, 51). Stevenson calls these latter types of messages “creative.” In my model, some of the messages that Stevenson describes as “creative” could be understood as either responsive or procultural, depending upon the parent’s purpose in sending such messages. Thus, the intent and context of each message is critical in determining whether it is procultural or responsive. For example, a family may discuss the achievements of African American inventors throughout history in order to highlight the greatness of African American heritage in and of itself, thus engaging in procultural racial socialization. The same family in another context may focus on the achievements of African American inventors throughout history in order to counter negative racial socialization messages their child has heard elsewhere about the alleged laziness or lower intellectual capacities of African Americans, thus engaging in responsive racial socialization. This model moves away from a reactionary construction, while still acknowledging...

Share