The racialization of privacy: racial formation as a family affair

Abstract

A right to family privacy is considered a cornerstone of American life, and yet access to it is apportioned by race. Our notion of the "racialization of privacy" refers to the phenomenon that family privacy, including the freedom to create a family uninhibited by law, pressure, and custom, is delimited by race. Building upon racial formation theory, this article examines three examples: the Native American boarding school system (1870s to 1970s), eugenic laws and practices (early/mid 1900s), and contemporary deportation. Analysis reveals that state-sponsored limitations on family privacy is a racial project that shapes the racial state. Performing an ideological genealogy with our cases, this article makes three contributions: it illustrates how the state leverages policies affecting families to define national belonging; it reveals how access to family privacy is patterned by race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexuality, and national origin; and it distills how Whiteness and a national racial hierarchy are socially constructed and maintained over time. With the racialization of privacy, we identify how the state seeks to reproduce institutionalized White supremacy and the effects this has on families. We argue that families are the linchpin in state-sponsored racial projects that construct the nation and that the racialization of privacy, as a form of inequality, is a defining characteristic of the color-line.

Racism and the mechanisms maintaining racial stratification in Black families

“…As a result, Black family research using quantitative methods is disconnected from the larger systems of white supremacy. A growing number of family scholars are highlighting how white supremacy as a system undergirds family science (Cross et al, 2022;Curtis et al, 2022;Letiecq, 2019;McNeil Smith & Landor, 2018;Vasquez-Tokos & Yamin, 2021;Walsdorf et al, 2020), over 50 years after Billingsley's (1970) initial indictment of family science.…”

“…In fact, Billingsley (1968Billingsley ( , 1970 argued that family science distorts Black families' experiences because White supremacy as a system undergirds the social sciences. Over 50 years later, contemporary scholarship continues to critique family science by highlighting how White supremacy as a system and other structural constraints guide our understanding of family life (Bryant et al, 2010;Burton et al, 2010;Cross et al, 2022;Curtis et al, 2022;Johnson & Loscocco, 2015;Landor & Barr, 2018;Letiecq, 2019;McNeil Smith & Landor, 2018;Vasquez-Tokos & Yamin, 2021;Walsdorf et al, 2020;Williams, 2019Williams, , 2020Williams et al, 2022).…”

Demographic-Reliant Algorithmic Fairness: Characterizing the Risks of Demographic Data Collection in the Pursuit of Fairness

“…The threat of expanding surveillance infrastructure, while reduced, is not altogether mitigated by the types of governance structures we have described or by voluntary participation in data collection efforts more broadly. Depending on how individuals are incentivized to contribute their data to a data trust or data cooperative, there is some threat of already exploited and disenfranchised populations disproportionately offering up their data for financial or material benefits, reinforcing existing disparities in privacy [68,115]. Furthermore, surveillance operates on a community scale, not just at the level of the individual.…”

Voting Intersections: Race, Class, and Participation in Presidential Elections in the United States 2008–2016

“…These historical realities suggest the issues with single-variable approaches to voter participation. Demonstrating that racialization, patriarchy, and class stratification are mutually contingent and interlocking (Bonilla-Silva 1997; Vasquez-Tokos and Yamin 2021), intersectionality research only deepens this imperative. In fields as diverse as family life and parenting (Dow 2016; Manning 2019), occupational mobility (Wingfield 2009), debt and wealth (M.…”