Closer proximity to whiteness can intensify exclusion rather than reduce it
Evidence
In fact, for youth like Roya, physical and socioeconomic proximity to hegemonic whiteness in the United States exacerbates social ostracization and exclusion. Knowledge about a group’s socioeconomic status, intermarriage rates, or official legal classification, which are foundational pieces of the assimilation puzzle, offer only partial insights into its members’ day-to-day racial experiences. — Neda Maghbouleh, The Limits of Whiteness, 29
Categorization
- XREF: Runs against the assimilationist premise that integration reduces marginalization; echoes research on model-minority and ‘in-between’ groups. — connects to: Forced proximity under rules of separation sustains racial disengagement without contact being absent — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 1829; Whiteness was defined as exclusion from black occupation, not skin or work — Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White, 399; Irish whiteness required excluding blacks from any shared occupation and erasing memory — Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White, 400 (+1 more)
Related
- Assimilation into whiteness fails where physical difference is perceived (similarity 0.83)
- Proximity to whiteness increases rather than reduces Iranian American racialization (similarity 0.82)
- Forced proximity under rules of separation sustains racial disengagement without contact being absent (similarity 0.80)
- Assimilation theory fails to predict Iranian Americans’ exclusion from whiteness (similarity 0.79)
- Formal white classification does not confer comparable social whiteness. (similarity 0.79)