Toward a relational racialization lens in education: addressing critiques of CRT’s race theory

Abstract

In the interdisciplinary field of education, critical race theory (CRT) is the predominant framework for studying racism. However, some have argued CRT lacks a racial theory and that CRT-education scholarship should examine how education racializes (i.e. contributes to making racialized categories). In this theoretical article, I suggest that one way to address this gap is by adopting a relational racialization lens—a perspective that helps scholars theorize on the process of creating the boundaries of racialized groups and that places these boundaries as always relational to the different racial categories. To support my proposal, I discuss CRT and the trends in the education literature focused on racialization. I then present an account of how a relational racialization lens complemented my CRT research and illuminated issues concerning racialization and racisms. I argue this lens can help education scholarship advance with a racial theory and in doing so contribute to important conversations about racialization.

Keywords:

• Education research
• race and racism
• racial theory
• relational racialization
• critical race theory in education
• critical theory

Acknowledgments

I thank the anonymous reviewers, as well as Dr. Amato Nocera and Dr. Jennifer McCarthy Foubert, for their comments on an earlier draft. They provided supportive feedback that helped me to edit and strengthen the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 I do not synonymize racialization with racial discrimination or racial formation. I mention their distinctions later (for more on their differences, see Hochman, 2019).

2 This quote also suggests some of the differences between an intersectionality lens and a relational racialization lens. Besides having different intellectual genealogies (as seen in the citations), these lenses also have different foci. Relational racialization is primarily used in ethnic studies, history, and sociology, and it centers the process of making racialized groups in a society, rather than the legal processes that prevent an individual from seeking relief from discrimination against intersecting identities.

3 In his critique, Tiongson seems to treat the comparative and relational lenses as interchangeable when describing both comparative and relational work. Additionally, Tiongson explains, “At its core, comparative critique aims to broaden the ground from which to consider the dynamics of the racialization process, accentuating the ways in which racialization operates in a relational manner” (p. 36).

4 CRT has several tenets (see Delgado & Stefancic [2001]). However, I only mention the tenet “race is a social construction” for two reasons: first, because this essay’s main arguments relate to this tenet, and second, due to limited space, which prevents mentioning the other tenets.

5 For more on this study’s relational racialization analysis, see Chávez-Moreno (forthcoming).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Laura C. Chávez-Moreno

Laura C. Chávez-Moreno is an assistant professor at the UCLA Departments of Chicanx & Central American Studies and Education. Dr. Chávez-Moreno’s scholarship has been published in Review of Educational Research, Educational Researcher, Journal of Teacher Education, Handbook of Latinos & Education (2nd ed.), and American Educational Research Journal, among other outlets. Dr. Chávez-Moreno is a 2020-2022 Fellow of the National Council of Teachers of English Research Foundation’s Cultivating New Voices Among Scholars of Color Program and a 2022 National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow. Dr. Chávez-Moreno’s book How Schools Make Race: Teaching Latinx Racialization in America is forthcoming from Harvard Education Press.