Challenging the ‘Swedish’ and ‘Immigrant’ Dichotomy: How do Multiracial and Multi-ethnic Swedes Identify Themselves?

ABSTRACT

A global trend has shown an increase in intimate partnerships across nationality, race, ethnicity, and religion. As a result, the children of these unions (i.e. multiethnic and multiracial persons) are undeniably part of contemporary Swedish society. This study is one of the first studies in Sweden that solely focuses on the multiracial and multiethnic population and their identity. Based on 21 qualitative interviews, this article explores how mixed Swedes identify themselves and how they experience that they are identified by others. The analysis shows that, contrary to the flexibility in how mixed Swedes identify themselves, mixed Swedes experience that people in society categorize them in a fixed idea of ‘either-or’. The idea of being Swedish is strongly connected to the idea of being white; therefore, many mixed Swedes with a non-white phenotype experience that their identification as Swedish is questioned, and a feeling of misrecognition emerge. However, mixed Swedes who can pass as Swedish also feeling constraints in claiming their identity and feel misrecognized especially when they identify themselves as ‘mixed’.

KEYWORDS:

• Mixed identity
• Sweden
• ethnic options

Introduction

Mixed marriages and mixed children, especially through colonization, have been ubiquitous in many societies. However, the increase in international mobility, not to mention the abolishment of anti-miscegenation laws that has existed in different countries, has brought about a significant increase in the number partnerships across national, racial, ethnic and religious boundaries. As a result, multiethnic and multiracial persons are undeniably part of contemporary societies (Osanami Törngren et al. 2019), and Sweden is not alone in this global trend.

The majority of studies on mixed-race identities are conducted in English-speaking countries, although there has been a significant increase in the amount of literature produced on mixedness outside of the English-speaking context (Edwards et al. 2012; King-O’Riain 2014; Childs 2018; Osanami Törngren et al. 2019; Rocha et al. 2019). Even with the array of research conducted, identity processes of mixed individuals are still very unclear, especially in the European context. Increased presence of mixed people is celebrated as a sign of the post-racial and a new era ‘destablising’ (Hollinger 2008) and ‘blurring’ (Alba and Alba 2012) the racial and ethnic boundaries. At the same time recent research across different context indicates that persons of mixed-background experience an ‘identity mismatch’ between their self-identification and externally assigned identification, and face discrimination and racialization in the society of their birth (Aspinall and Song 2013; Franco et al. 2016; Tutwiler 2016; Osanami Törngren et al. 2019).

Despite the increasing attention on mixedness globally, research on mixed identities is still limited within the Nordic context (Appel and Singla 2016; Sandset 2018; Skadegård and Jensen 2018) and especially in the Swedish context. This article analyses the identification process of multiracial and multiethnic Swedes based on 21 qualitative interviews with mixed Swedish young adults. The article examines their self-claimed and the assigned identity and whether mixed Swedes experience constraints in their ethnic options to claim that they are Swedish. The analysis shows how the idea of ‘being Swedish’ is contested and identification as mixed are becoming more accepted among the mixed Swedes, however the flexibility in identification is limited through the rigid practice of racial appraisal. This article contributes to the growing field of mixed-race identities around the globe, particularly in the Nordic context, and to the understanding of the fluid and shifting nature of identity.

The Swedish Context

The racial and ethnic composition of Sweden has changed dramatically in a relatively short period of time through immigration. Since around 1950s Sweden slowly became a country of immigration, attracting labour migration from the European and Nordic countries. The change in the racial and ethnic landscape of the country is the most obvious after 1980, when a larger proportion of immigrants from outside Europe start to reside in Sweden seeking asylum.

Sweden is built on a colour-blind racial attitudes (Osanami Törngren 2019) and information on individuals’ race and ethnicity – whether it be self-reported or assigned is not available. Based on colour-blind administrative data such as individual’s country of origin as well as citizenship gathered by the Swedish statistical office (SCB), the population of Sweden is often divided in two categories in the official statistics and social analysis: those with a Swedish background and those with a foreign background, and those who are Swedish-born in contrast to foreign-born. A person of ‘Swedish background’ is defined as someone born in Sweden who has one or two parents born in Sweden, while a person of ‘foreign background’ is defined as someone born outside of Sweden or someone born in Sweden with two foreign-born parents (Sweden 2018). Based on ‘the either-or logic’ with the idea of singular identity (Lou and Lalonde 2015; Brubaker 2016), ‘first-generation multiracial’ (Daniel et al. 2014) who are Swedish-born mixed persons with one parent born in Sweden and one parent born outside of Sweden, or those who are ‘2.5 generation’ (Perlmann 2001; Karthick Ramakrishnan 2004) who has two Swedish-born parents but with different ethnic and racial backgrounds, are incorporated into the category of Swedish background.

Recently, statistics have been made available that differentiate persons with one foreign-born parent and one Swedish-born parent from persons having two foreign-born parents of different countries of origin. Further distinctions based on geographical location can also be seen in the official reports. Nevertheless, identifying mixed individuals based on such statistics is still a challenge in Sweden. In 2018, 18 per cent of the 10 million residents of Sweden were born abroad, 5 per cent of people born in Sweden had two foreign-born parents, while 7 per cent of those also born in Sweden were the children of bi-national marriages, as in, having both a Swedish-born parent and a foreign-born parent. Regarding the population of those under 18 in three major cities (Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö), native Swedish people with two Swedish-born parents are a numerical minority: More than 50 per cent have ‘foreign backgrounds’ (that is, either themselves, one, or both of their parents were born abroad). Around 17 per cent of the population are children of bi-national marriages in the three biggest cities, potentially representing a multiracial and multiethnic population (Sweden 2018).

Research shows that whiteness shapes the definition of Swedishness in contemporary Sweden (Hübinette and Lundström 2011; Runfors 2016; Gokieli 2017; Lundström 2017). Researchers illustrate how ‘immigrant’ identities in Sweden develop through interaction and contact with the majority society, through which they become aware of not being white (Kalonaityte et al. 2007; Lundström 2007; Khosravi 2009). As a result, in the public imaginary and daily conversation, the word ‘Swedish’ connotates whiteness and functions as a white racial category while ‘immigrant background’ connotes non-whiteness and becomes a category in which all non-white Swedes are lumped together. Research indicates that persons of mixed origin may experience different kinds of discrimination and disadvantages in Sweden (Behtoui 2006; Kalmijn 2015; Smith et al. 2019), and mixed Swedes need to manoeuvre the white racial norm (Adeniji 2014; Arbouz 2017; Hübinette and Arbouz 2019). Moreover, the terms and awareness equivalent to ‘multiracial’, ‘multiethnic’, and ‘mixed’ do not exist in the Swedish society and the Swedish language, which may limit their possibilities to identify themselves and contest the existing binary (Arbouz 2012). This is evident when famous figures such as Jason Timbuktu Diakité (African American Swedish), Johannes Anyuru, (Ugandan Swedish) or Jonas Hassen Khemiri (Tunisian Swedish), whose backgrounds as multiracial persons are well known and who publicly engage about their personal experiences on racialization, are ascribed with immigrant male images (Gokieli 2017).

Mixed Identity

Identity is not something static but it is rather a process which is two-way and dialectic (Jenkins 2005). Identification can be based on relational modes such as kinship or friendship, but also based on a categorical attribute such as race, ethnicity, language, nationality, or gender (Brubaker and Cooper 2000). The distinction also needs to be made between self-identification (acquired identity) and identification by others (ascribed identity) (Brubaker and Cooper 2000; Jenkins 2005). Exploration on how the mixed population’s ‘self-image’ meets ‘public image’ (Song and Aspinall 2012) show that there are different ways mixed people identify, and they may experience a gap between their self-claimed racial identity and the assigned or ‘reflected race’ (DaCosta 2007; Aspinall and Song 2013; Masuoka 2017; Morning and Saperstein 2018; Roth 2018).

Here, the conceptual difference between race and ethnicity also needs to be highlighted: Race becomes real through racialization and varying degree of discrimination (Daynes and Lee 2008; Bonilla-Silva 2010; Song 2014; Gans 2017). Ethnicity can be symbolic (Gans 1979), the degree of identification and practices of culture may vary depending on the individuals’ level of engagement (Cantle 2005). Racial appraisals are based on visible phenotype and individuals cannot escape from it, whereas ethnicity is not always visible and based on the idea of common culture. A mismatch in identification may occur, as one’s self-identification is not always affirmed by others, and their ethnic options (Waters 1990) – their ability to claim their ethnic identity – can be constrained, especially for mixed persons with visible phenotypes. The concept of ethnic options addressed by Waters addresses how the white American populations enjoy ethnicity as a choice, while ethnic minorities do not have such a choice because of racial assignment. When racial difference is not visible, individuals may have the option to pass, identify and present oneself as one chooses (Goffman 1990). For example, a German-English-Polish American person can pick and choose to identify as e.g. German-English, and this choice validated, while a black German-African person will be scrutinized of his/her self-identification if the person looks black (Waters 1990). Song (2003) extends the idea of ethnic options to non-white ethnic minorities and mixed persons and proposes that ethnic options should be discussed in terms of the availability of different options (Song 2003). For example, socioeconomic status, ethnic concentration, and the dynamics of ethnic labels and images play a role in the extent to which ethnic minorities and mixed people can exercise their ethnic options (Song 2001; Fhagen-Smith 2010; Holloway et al., 2012; Song 2003).

Song argues that the practice of racial passing as majority (or in some case minority) for multiracial and multiethnic individuals should be conceptualized as an ethnic option which one may or may not have control over (Song 2003). The different constraints mixed persons experiences in their ethnic options are well documented in different contexts (Harris and Sim 2002; Aspinall and Song 2013; Osanami Törngren and Sato 2019) however not addressed in the Swedish context. The identity labels mixed persons choose has a consequence because the lives of mixed persons who are categorized as racially and ethnically different, and their identity as Swedish questioned and challenged. Multiracial Swedes, who are phenotypically different from the white majority population, may be subject to racialization and treated as ‘immigrants’, while multiethnic persons may be able to pass as ‘Swedish’ based on their whiteness. Multiracial persons might be automatically assumed to possess an ethnic identity, while multiethnic persons may have the option to pick and choose which identity they would like to claim. Because ethnic option is achieved only when the ethnic identities asserted by individuals are recognized and validated by the wider society, mixed persons with distinct phenotypical differences will find it more difficult to pass as the majority population (Waters 1990; Song 2003).

Method and Data

My analysis will focus on 21 semi-structured interviews with mixed people (15 females and 6 males), which were conducted during the period of August 2018 to January 2019. The interviewees were recruited through social media and the university network on the basis of identifying with the description of having ‘one Swedish parent and one parent of a foreign background or is not a Swedish citizen’ and the place of upbringing being predominantly in Sweden. Five interviews were conducted in person, while the rest were conducted via Skype or Facetime. All except one interview (in English) were conducted in Swedish, and each lasted approximately 30 min to an hour.

The mean age of the interviewees at the time of the interviews was 25 years. The majority are first-generation mixed (with one foreign-born non-Swedish parent), while three interviewees are multigeneration mixed, having two parents of different origins who grew up in Sweden. This study do not include multiethnic and multiracial experiences of those who have two non-white parents. Six interviewees were of Latin American-Swedish mix, eight were of Asian-Swedish mix, and four were of European-Swedish mix, which is a representation that falls in line with the statistics on intermarriage patterns (Osanami Torngren and Irastorza). Two sets of siblings are included in the interviewees (see Appendix 1 for details).

The interviewees gave both oral and written consent to participate in the study. All the interviews were recorded with their consent, and the transcriptions were forwarded for them to review. In addition, the interview materials were treated anonymously and confidentially. The transcriptions were translated from Swedish to English, and the names that appear in this article are pseudonymous.

Findings

The way multiracial and multiethnic Swedes identify themselves reflects the emergence of mixed identity in Sweden which includes hyphenated identification and specific terms such as ‘half’ (halvis), ‘mixed’ (mixad/blandad), or ‘half and half’ (halv-halv) as well as terms completely outside of the ethnoracial connotations. This shows how these self-identification categories are contesting the binary identification that exist in Sweden. Despite the diverse ways the interviewees identify themselves, most of them reported reflected identification based on the binary, Swedish or non-Swedish, and other specific words that imply non-whiteness (Table 1).

Table 1. Self and ascribed identification.

Name	Self identification	Ascribed identification
Adam	Jewish Latino	Swedish
Agnes	Swedish, half or mixed	Swedish
Alicia	Swedish	Swedish
Claudia	Swedish and Italian, half-half	Swedish
David	Swedish	Swedish
Edvin	Non-categorical term	Non-Swedish
Elise	Swedish, Swedish Ethiopian	Non-Swedish
Eman	Swedish and Moroccan	Arabic
Eri	Half Japanese and half Swedish	Non-Swedish, non-white
Felicia	Non-categorical term	Cuban
Hugo	Swedish	Swedish
Ines	Swedish-Argentinian	Swedish
Jennifer	Mixed, half Asian	Asian
Lucia	Swedish	Non-Swedish
Mari	Half Japanese	Asian, Japanese
Maria	Swedish and Roma	Non-Swedish
Melinda	Mixed	Swedish
Mina	Swedish, Japanese-Swedish	Non-white
Nille	Swedish	Swedish
Sana	Mixed	Asian, non-white
Tova	Swedish	Indian

I further explore how the interviewed mixed Swedes choice of identification and experiences in the constraints to exercise their ethnic options.

Identifying as Swedish

David (American-French-Swedish) identifies himself as Swedish and experiences his identification as validated. This is reflected in his comment that ‘it never comes up in a conversation that he is different’, and he claims that he feels at home in Sweden and passes as Swedish, French, and American everywhere he goes. He says that there was no strong American or French influence in his upbringing except for the language. His ethnic identification and his mixed background is symbolic (Gans 1979) and reflects the flexibility of ethnic identification based on the cultural origin and heritage independent of whether the individuals engage in the cultural practices (Cantle 2005). His way of identifying infers a similar process to white Americans’ ethnic options of being able to choose white ethnicity. In Alicia’s upbringing (Hungarian-German-Swedish), the Hungarian language and culture were also not strongly present. The German influence was more present, as she had direct contact and interactions with her relatives in Germany, including her grandmother. She identifies herself as ‘Swedish rather than not Swedish, but less Swedish than a 100% Swede’. She says she feels ‘a little bit Hungarian’ and expresses her wish to learn more about her Hungarian heritage. Both David and Alicia identify themselves as Swedish; however, this does not mean that they dissociate or distance themselves from their mixed background and parental origin.

Nille (Japanese-Swedish) said that he always says that he is Swedish. He rarely experiences that he is asked questions like ‘But where are you really from?’ and therefore, believes that he can pass as Swedish. Nille was the only interviewee of non-white mix background who experienced that his claim to be Swedish was validated, while others experienced constraints on their claim of being Swedish. Among them for example is Elise, who self-identify as Swedish but adds ‘racially and biologically 50-50: Swedish and Ethiopian’. She explains to me that her physical appearance contradicts with her cultural and ethnic background as Swedish, which creates a gap between the reflected appraisal and the self-identification.

‘Because despite everything, it feels like it is not possible [to be accepted as Swedish]. I know that if I say so [Swedish], they [people] will say against me [that I am not]. […] At the same time, if I can't say that, what else am I?

She later adds, ‘It is quite confusing because it is such a contradiction that one sees oneself in one way, and then it is pointed out that you are not. […] it gets strange to handle’. Her words clearly reflect not only the process of racialization based on her phenotypical appearance but also how her identity is scrutinized and policed because of her phenotype (Brubaker 2016). The constraint in her ethnic option and feeling of misrecognition resonates with previous studies (Aspinall and Song 2013; Osanami Törngren 2018).

Like Elise, Tova also shares the same experience of being questioned her claim as Swedish, although she is resolute in her identify as Swedish. When asked how she identifies herself she answers, ‘Swedish. Yes. I feel that it’s quite easy to say so; meanwhile, it is hard to have to defend it so often’. Her father is an adoptee from Finland and her mother is an adoptee from India: In other words, she is multiracial and was raised by two monocultural parents and have no direct contact with the parental country of origin. She says she is always seen as Indian because of her physical appearance.

Swedish is my native language. I have not been able to speak any other languages. I was born here. None of my parents speak any other languages other than Swedish, although none of them were born in Sweden. There are different definitions on the basis [of what it means to be Swedish]. Some think that one must be born in Sweden, some think that your parents must be born in Sweden, some think that one must be able to speak the language, or some say that it is just to have a passport. I feel that I can check off the majority [of these things], but not all. Some think that you must look Swedish, which I may not, but I think I look Swedish in my definition of Swedish.

Tova’s words indicate how identifying as Swedish can embrace different racial and ethnic categories instead of understanding Swedish as a white racial category. She actively uses the term Swedish as a national identification rather than simply as a white racial category, and in doing so, redefines the meaning of the category of Swedish.

Hugo (Chilean-Spanish-Swedish), who experiences that he can pass as Swedish, says ‘I am mostly Swedish’. When he was younger, he identified more with his Chilean and Spanish mix; however, as he grew older, he started to identify himself more as Swedish. This also came with the fact that he realized that he was increasingly ascribed with a foreigner identity and also saw how people dichotomized themselves:

I became too annoyed and angry when people said that I was not Swedish – that it was partly this thing that, of course, I am Swedish. I was born and raised in Sweden. But also because we see the opposite as well. [One can] meet people who had lived in Sweden their entire lives and still have nothing good to say about Sweden and criticize and say negative things and say we are not Swedish and this and that.

Like Tova, Hugo’s words also reflect the idea that the identification as Swedish should embrace different backgrounds. Lucia, Hugo’s sister, also clearly articulates this identification as Swedish. Contrary to Hugo, she experiences that she is racialized and cannot pass as Swedish and constantly has her claim questioned when people insist ‘But where are you really from?’ She identifies herself as someone ‘from Sweden’ and reasons around the idea of national belonging.

I want people to see me as a person who has a mixture of different things and likes having different interests and not really box me in and [categorize me] – ‘You are foreigner’ or ‘You are typically Swedish’.

Contrary to the majority of the interviewees who are first generation multiracial and multi-ethnic, Tova, Hugo, and Lucia are a multigeneration mix. As Brubaker argues, the fractional logic of identification based on parental country of origin becomes less socially meaningful as the generations of mixedness advances from the first generation multiracial specifically identifying as half something – with a strong cultural sense and often with transnational ties – to multigenerational mixed persons with a more symbolic association and further ties to culture and ethnicity. As Brubaker (2016) argues their identification then becomes selective, more as an ethnic option, with one retaining some socially meaningful identifications but discarding others (Morning and Saperstein 2018). Tova, Hugo and Lucia’s choice of identification infers this process in which the identification as Swedish outweighs any identification based on parental country of origin. However, in the minds of others, their mixed backgrounds are fixed with the parental origin, despite that today the social meaning of parental origin is diminishing, and ethnicity is becoming more symbolic (Gans 1979; Waters 1990). Embracing their mixed heritage, many with mixed backgrounds identify themselves as Swedish, not as an either-or identification located in the either-or logic of Swedish as white and thus redefining what it means to be Swedish through national belonging. This identification of Swedish as a race-neutral term, independent of whether the interviewees can pass as Swedes or not, resonates with previous research showing how mixed persons identify through national belonging (Song and Aspinall 2012).

Experiences of racialization and facing stereotypes do affect the way mixed Swedes choose to identify themselves. Mina (Japanese-Swedish) says that she identifies herself as Japanese or Japanese-Swedish in situations where people have not just ‘Swedish and white’ background but are ‘non-white’. In front of a white Swedish person she does not feel comfortable saying that she is Japanese. When I ask her why she does not feel comfortable identifying herself as Japanese in front of white Swedes, she explains that it’s because of the ‘imagination about Japan’ and the expectations that are connected to Japan and being Japanese which are enforced on her against her will.

There is something about Japan. I experience that many Swedes have very concrete pictures of what they think Japan is. Do you get it? They have some sort of imagination, lots of ideas and preconceptions. Some sort of fantasy. Like the other day, [someone said], ‘You are someone sort of Asian’, and I said I was Japanese. Right then, they feel that I can talk about these things. I can talk to you about sushi. I can talk to you about anime and manga and this thing that is happening in Japan.

Later she says, ‘If I then say that I am half Japanese, then it is suddenly, “Oh, okay, you are not a real Japanese – a full Japanese”.’ Her words depict an interesting process of racialization and deracialization, and the constraints in claiming her ethnic identity as Japanese. She experiences that her authenticity as Japanese and her knowledge about Japan gets questioned and overruled in the majority white Swedish context and by Swedes who want to maintain a certain picture of Japan. Her experience depicts how different identification choices invoke different associations and expectations, which leads to consequences for one’s actions and associations with others (Deaux 2018). Mina also says that she is questioned regularly: ‘are you more Japanese or more Swedish?’ She experiences the policing of the boundary, the ascribed identity based on either-or logic, that you are more of/less of one and thus you cannot be both-and (Brubaker 2016).

It is so tense. In Sweden, it is so clear that I am Japanese because I do not fit in and because I am not white. But then, personally and absolutely I myself think I am more Swedish than Japanese.

Her words clearly reflect the existing idea of Swedish as a white racial category based on the either-or logic. She clearly experiences a gap between self-identification and how people identify her.

Interestingly, several interviewees expressed that ‘being Swedish is boring’ and identified themselves as something else than Swedish. This idea of being Swedish as boring can be interpreted as a contestation of the either-or fixed idea of being Swedish or not. For example, David (Argentinian-Swedish) strongly identifies himself as Sephardi, Jewish, and Latino, and says, ‘I do not identify with the Swedish identity even though it is pretty obvious.’ He normally passes as a Swede, and people are surprised to find out that he is of a mixed background. He shares his experience of being excluded from the category ‘Latino’ and feeling strange about it. When I asked him how he wants to be seen by others, he articulates very clearly:

I want, firstly, to be seen as Sephardi and partly Latino. They are the two identities that exist simultaneously. […] Swedish has been something that – I have never fought to be seen as Swedish, but I have always struggled not to be seen as Swedish.

Adam aspires to not be identified as Swedish, and identifies with his father’s origin, which can be interpreted as a contestation to the existing idea of being Swedish. His words depict his self-identification as both-and and beyond either-or because he experiences that he is confined in the logic of either-or being categorized and passing as ‘Swedish’. Agnes’ experience (Honduran-Swedish) is very similar to Adam’s; however, Agnes feels that she does not have the claim to say that she is Latin American. Agnes can pass as Swedish, and this makes her identification complicated. She explains, ‘Appearance-wise, I'm very white passing, and that is exactly what has led to me having a complex feeling.’ She visits Honduras frequently and is fluent in Spanish. Moreover, her name indicates a Latin American background. Despite the language skills and transnational ties, she feels that her Latin American identity is not validated by others, given that she can pass as white and Swedish and is often situated in a predominantly white middle-class environment. She claims that when she was in a mixed setting at a university, she felt that it was easier to assert her Latino identity. She feels confined in the either-or logic and cannot locate herself in between. She explains to me the racialised geography of Stockholm – to come from ‘the hood’ (orten) – and how that may affect the way she acts and identifies herself as Latino. She connects her middle-class status as a reflection of Swedishness which partly invalidates her Latino identity. Adam and Agnes both feels that their ethnic identity is not validated always because they can pass as Swedes despite their upbringing being strongly connected to Latin American culture. Their experiences are examples of how ascribed identities are based on the either-or dichotomized categorization of being ‘Swedish’ or of ‘an immigrant background’. Their experiences of passing and being appraised as Swedish reflect the idea of Swedish as a white racial category. Passing as a majority often entails privilege; however, their experience shows how passing can also involve feelings of misrecognition and dilemmas (Aspinall and Song 2013; Gaither 2015; Osanami Törngren and Sato 2019). Adam and Agnes respond differently to the constraints of feeling that there is no in between or an option to be both-and or neither-nor.

Being Both-And

Claudia identifies herself as ‘Swedish and Italian’ and feels that she can pass as Swedish and Italian in both countries. Similarly, Melinda (Kosovo Albanian-Swedish) and Ines (Argentinian-Swedish) also pass as Swedish yet identify themselves as mixed. Even though they identify as mixed, they all experience that they are ascribed with a Swedish identity because they are ascribed with a white racial identity. Both Melinda and Ines have been told, ‘I didn’t know that you are not Swedish’. Ines clearly claims ‘mixed identity’ (blandad), and she identifies herself as ‘both Swedish and Argentinian’. She passes as Swedish phenotypically, but the difference for Ines compared to Claudia and Melinda is that Ines’ name becomes the target of racialization and through name she is ascrbried as ‘not Swedish’.

I have a Swedish first name, and then I have a double last name – an Argentinian and a Swedish surname. And it is really about drawing a boundary directly when I meet people in context where my name is directly [visible] as soon as I introduce myself. I am very quickly reminded of my background and my parentage and where I come from, why my name is my name, and I get a lot of comments about it. Then there are many who get confused and say, ‘Oh when I saw you I thought you were Swedish’.

At another point, she said that as soon as people notice that her name is not Swedish, they do not accept her as being ‘completely Swedish’ anymore: ‘[My name] comes up directly, and then I am not given a chance to say how people should treat me before they realize that I have Latin American ancestry.’ This is another clear example of racialization based on the either-or dichotomy.

Eman (Moroccan-Swedish) says that what is important for him is his personality and behaviour but also clearly identifies himself based on the parental origins having ‘Swedish mother and Moroccan father’. He says that he cannot pass as Swedish and he is ascribed as an ‘Arab’. His words clearly reflect yet again how society racialize people according to the either-or logic based on the idea of Swedish as a white racial category, and this constrains his ethnic option to locate himself in between as he wishes.

I think it is others who help me, other people and not me, who help me to clarify, other people who emphasize the national identity more than I do myself. That is why I think of my national identity because it is obvious that this is what people think of.

Jennifer (Chinese Malay-Swedish Finn) is used to people asking her, ‘Where are you from?’ and she says that people see her more as ‘Asian’ than mixed. Contrary to her being racialized as Asian, her self-identification reflects flexibility and her identity as Swedish.

I usually describe myself as mixed in some way. I can sometimes say ‘half Asian’, but then there will be a long explanation. I'm half Asian, my dad comes from there, my mother comes from there, and I was born in Sweden. I know that when I was younger, it was very important that I was born in Sweden. It was my identity. I have always felt that I am Swedish to a larger extent. Although I don’t look Swedish and maybe not everyone has seen me as Swedish, but I myself have felt very Swedish.

Like the interviewees introduced earlier (such as Lucia), Jennifer understands the category of Swedish as a national identity rather than as a white racial category. Moreover, for Jennifer, the social meaning of parental origin does not outweigh the meaning of her being mixed and Swedish (Brubaker 2016).

Eri explains that the easiest way to identify herself is ‘half Japanese and half Swedish’ but as Jennifer, Eri shows fluidity in her identification and does not definitely position or incline herself to either side of the parental origin.

I want to be seen as both Swedish and Japanese. But I would surely be more upset if someone denied my Swedishness. Because I am more Swedish than what I am Japanese, and I was born and raised in Sweden.

She also said (as Adam introduced earlier) that she thinks being Swedish is boring, but the difference between Adam and Eri is the experiences of racialization. She says that she belongs to the group ‘non-white’ because she had an upbringing where she was told and reminded all the time that she is not ‘white’. Her sister, Sana, also recognizes the fixed idea of Swedish as white and says that ‘it gets much more complicated for me when I say that I am Swedish. Then I have to have a much longer conversation about it’. She describes herself as ‘mixed’ and sometimes ‘Japanese-Swedish.’ Like Eri, Sana also says that her cultural identity – which she specifies as language, values, and other cultural grounds – is Swedish and nothing else. At the same time, she says she cannot deny the influence from her father who was strongly attached to Japan despite that they were not close after her parents separated. She reasons how she navigates the traditional social categories that exist in Sweden:

I'm not an immigrant. I'm not [transnationally] adopted either. There were such clear identity categories that I did not belong to. What am I then? I am perhaps some kind of a white person because I still have the attributes. I have the culture.

Sana explains how her middle-class identity has become important for her because she looked different from other ‘Swedes’. For her, emphasizing her class was a way of belonging to the idea of Swedishness. This is an interesting contrast with Agnes’ experience (introduced earlier), who felt that her middle-class status was a hinder for her to claim her Latino background.

Mari (Japanese-Swedish) identifies herself as ‘half-Japanese’. She explains that it has always been important for her to point out that she has a Japanese parentage, but her identification as half-Japanese also comes from her experiences of racialization, constantly being referred to as ‘that Japanese girl’. She contests to the either-or thinking expresses her wish not to be categorized as one: ‘Being tied to just one thing – it is a suppression which I may not be really happy about. […] I want to be me. I do not want to be tied to any single category.’ Like Mina (introduced earlier), Mari also faces expectations and stereotypes around the idea of being Japanese and says ‘You just want to be [yourself]. Can’t you just get away from what people identify you as?’. Her words clearly shows the constrains in her ethnic option. Mari describes this as a feeling of ‘alienation’, which is a clear example of misrecognition which resonates with studies on mixed identity in different contexts (Aspinall and Song 2013; Osanami Törngren et al. 2019).

Maria (Polish-Swedish-Roma) identifies as being Swedish and Roma. Maria has two Roma parents who originate from Sweden and Poland. She clearly says that she has never ‘felt Polish’ even though she has transnational ties, speaks the Polish Romani language and knows the culture. She states, ‘My home country is Sweden. I am Swedish’ and explains the feeling of coming home when she goes on a flight and lands in Sweden. Her claim of being Swedish is a national identification – a feeling that other interviewees share. However, again, Swedish as a white racial category puts constraints on her claim to be Swedish and Roma. She contests the existing either-or logic of identification:

If I want to call myself Swedish, I will call myself Swedish. If I want to call myself a Roma, I'll call myself Roma. Accept it. If I want to say both, one should not question one identity and not the other.

This is a clear articulation of flexibility of identity and an articulation of her right to identify herself as she chooses (Root 1996), where she can shift between being Swedish, Roma, and both without inclining to one.

Many interviewees identified themselves as mixed in different ways and identify themselves as Swedish through the national belonging; however, their mixed identity is not validated in Swedish society and others may not accept the mixed status as a meaningful category (Rockquemore and Brunsma 2002; Lou and Lalonde 2015). Racialization based on their phenotype and name, mixed persons are placed in a category of being ‘Swedish’ or of ‘an immigrant background’.

Being Transcendent

Edvin (French Korean adoptee Swedish) and Felicia (Cuban-Finnish) were the two interviewees who identified themselves completely outside of ethnoracial terms. They both experience that they cannot pass as Swedish. They distance themselves from ethnoracial identification because they are constantly racialized. Edvin says that he avoids any national, ethnic, and racial reference by claiming that he is from Gothenburg. He understands the category ‘Swedish’ as being equal to being white and questions what ‘Swedish’ means.

So just this thing, Swedish. I have understood [it] through people’s way of talking to me. […] But just because they say ‘Swedish’, that I am not Swedish, I have never seen myself as Swedish. In other contexts, when I have become closer to these people, then they say, ‘I see you as Swedish’. And it’s like that, see me [as Swedish], what?

Felicia explained to me that she acted according to the stereotypes and what is expected of her as ‘Cuban’ when she was younger to make it ‘easier for everybody’. Until today, she says she was never treated as Swedish but rather as Cuban or someone who is ‘brown’. She tells me her experiences of racialization based on the idea of Swedish as a white racial category. She contests this by identifying herself as ‘global’ and explains, ‘Sure, you can put me in a box, but you will never understand who I am’.

It was all the time, ‘Where are you from?’ Then I started with a new strategy, and I say ‘Finland’. ‘Okay’, they say, but they can't digest it. There must be something more. Cuba! It's a relief. Yes, there! Of course! Okay, I understand [why people see it that way], but I see myself as part of the world, and I am myself. I am [me]. You do not need to put me into boxes.

Edvin’s and Felicia’s experiences reflect how the Swedish society and people around define them through the idea of being Swedish as white. As a strategy, both Edvin and Felicia identify themselves outside of the prevailing idea of ancestry and outside of any particular ethnoracial categories based on a neither-nor logic that locates mixed identities outside the prevailing idea of ancestry (Lou and Lalonde 2015). Their identification resonates with studies which shows superordinate identity as ‘human’ or a ‘world citizen’ (Amiot and De La Sablonnière 2010), and challenging the validity of the idea of race itself (Shih et al. 2007).

Concluding Remarks

The article examines multiracial and multiethnic Swedish young adults’ identification and response to their reflected identity. It shows the emergence of more flexible and neither-nor identification reflected on hyphenated terms or identification as ‘mixed’. However, similar to the black–white US context (Brubaker 2016; Morning 2018), the interview results clearly show that although they claim their identities that are outside of the traditional ethnoracial categorization, other people’s appraisals remain fixed with the either-or logic based on the idea of Swedish as white. Contrary to the flexible self-identification, those who are racialized especially experience that others in society place them in the traditional dichotomy of Swedish or a person of immigrant background. Therefore, their mixed identities are unvalidated (Rockquemore and Brunsma 2002; Lou and Lalonde 2015). In addition, it shows that some interviewees identify themselves as Swedish in terms of nationality and cultural belonging in Sweden as in the British context (Song and Aspinall 2012). Claiming to be Swedish does not necessarily cater to the dichotomized either-or logic based on whiteness but can be an active attempt to redefine the boundary of what it means to be Swedish, thus rejecting the idea of Swedish as a white racial category. Racialized mixed interviewees were questioned their Swedish identity and claim to Swedishness constrained and experience the policing of Swedish identity through the scrutinization of their non-Swedish sounding names or the question, ‘Where are you from?’ This confirms previous studies that show how whiteness defines who can and cannot be called Swedish (Runfors 2016; Gokieli 2017; Lundström 2017). On the other hand, those who are white and passed as Swedish were ascribed with the Swedish identity. However, their Swedish identity being validated did not always mean that they enjoyed their ethnic options. Interviewees who claimed their mixed identity especially felt misrecognized when they pass as Swedish.

For both multiethnic and multiracial interviewees, the above constrains in their ethnic options meant that they experience a gap in their self-identification and reflected appraisal which they need to cope and respond to (Aspinall and Song 2013). Responses to the gap and the reasoning around their identity varies, as suggested in previous studies conducted in different contexts. As Roth (2018) claims, if classification norms remain relatively fixed, the disparity will increase between self-identification and how one is seen by others. This calls for an attention in observing how flexibility in identification may or may not lead to the redrawing of traditional boundaries of Swedishness.

The findings of this study also suggest the need to further address the meaning of whiteness, race, and the racialization process in Sweden. Although Sweden maintains a colour-blind approach, interviewees freely used different terms that refer to their skin colour, phenotype, and racial belonging. Currently, there is a polarized discussion around collecting data on race and ethnicity in Sweden (Osanami Törngren 2019). However, there is no evidence which suggests that not collecting data reduces racism, discrimination, or the belief in racial essentialism, nor asking to self-report your ethnicity and race are experienced as sensitive (Simon 2017; Öhberg and Medeiros 2019). One can argue that the growing mixed population in Sweden need to be recognized.

The interviewees’ experiences suggest that the choice to identify as Swedish or mixed is not a fixed and objective state of identity but rather highly fluid (Brubaker and Cooper 2000; Jenkins 2005). This indicates how mixed Swedes’ identifications are beyond the traditional either-or thinking based on the prevailing idea of ancestry and whiteness. The choices invoke different associations and expectations that are associated with the identification, which may have consequences for one’s actions and associations with others (Deaux 2018). Therefore, some mixed Swedes identify differently depending on the context and time. As Brubaker (2016) argues, when identifying with selected parental categories shifts to simply identifying as ‘multiracial’ or ‘mixed’ without a core identification with any ethno-racial categories, it destabilizes the official practice of categorizing the population. Mixed persons occupy positions which challenge the dichotomy of ‘Swedish’ and ‘immigrants’ and thus provide valuable insights into the process of racial appraisals and identification in Sweden.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sayaka Osanami Törngren

Sayaka Osanami Törngren is a senior researcher at the Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM). Her most recent research focuses on mixed identity in Japan and Sweden.

Appendix 1

List of interviewees

Table

Name	Age	Father	Mother	Occupation	Parents’ divorce	Place of upbringing	Home visits
Adam	27	Argentinian	Swedish	Working	Yes	Stockholm	Few times
Agnes	22	Honduran	Swedish	Student	No	Stockholm	Regular visits
Alicia	21	Hungarian	German-Swedish	Student	No	Other	Few times
Claudia	23	Italian	Swedish	Student	No	Malmö	Regular visits
David	20	French-Swedish	American	Working	No	Malmö	Regular visits
Edvin	31	French	Korean adoptee	Working	Yes	Gothenburg	No visit
Elise	24	Swedish	Tanzania	Student	Yes	Other	Sporadic
Eman	26	Moroccano	Swedish	Working, studying	Yes	Stockholm	Regular visits
Eri*	31	Japanese	Swedish	Working	Yes	Gothenburg	Few times
Felicia	25	Cuban	Finnish	Working	Yes	Stockholm, Malmö	Regular visits
Hugo**	21	Spanish-Swedish	Chile	Working	No	Malmö	Regular visits
Ines	28	Argentinian	Swedish	Student	No	Stockholm	Few times
Jennifer	33	Chinese-Malay	Swedish-Finn	Student	No	Malmö	Regular visits
Lucia**	19	Spanish-Swedish	Chile	Student	No	Malmö	Regular visits
Mari	26	Japanese	Swedish	Student	No	Gothenburg	Regular visits
Maria	21	Roma-Polish	Roma-Swedish	Student	No	Malmö	Regular visits
Melinda	22	Kosovo Alban	Swedish	Sick leave	Yes	Other	No visit
Mina	23	Swedish	Japanese	Student	No	Stockholm	Regular visits
Nille	27	Japanese	Swedish	Working	Yes	Other	Sporadic
Sana*	33	Japanese	Swedish	Working	Yes	Gothenburg	Few times
Tova	26	Finish adoptee	Indian adoptee	Student	No	Stockholm	Few times

*siblings.

**siblings.