Mixed matters in Australia

ABSTRACT

Mapping attitudes toward intermarriage – who is and who is NOT considered an acceptable mate – offers an incisive means through which imaginings of belonging – ethnicity, nationhood, citizenship, race, and culture – can be critically evaluated. Looking specifically at Australia, despite a growing body of research on whiteness, and Mixedness, there is very little qualitative research on attitudes toward mixing among the different groups in Australia. Therefore, in this article, I document attitudes towards ‘mixed’ marriage through focus group interviews in communities across Australia to explore what boundaries, if any, exist and the attitudes of different groups toward intermarriage and ‘mixed’ families in Australia. Drawing from these 69 focus groups conducted across seven cities and the surrounding area of the six states of Australia: Darwin, Perth, Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Adelaide, and Melbourne with homogenous groups based on the ways Australians self-identify – indigenous (Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander), white (differentiating if applicable between those who identify as Australian as opposed to European or South African), African Australian, and other groups at various community locations, I argue that national discourses of multiculturalism and imaginings of who and what constitutes being Australian heavily influence attitudes toward mixing. Furthermore, there is a clear hierarchy of desirability in terms of who is considered marriable, with pattern in the narratives and counter-narratives offered by different groups. These findings are presented within a larger discussion of how the contemporary situation in Australia compares to the institutional, individual, and ideological practices that discourage mixing globally.

KEYWORDS:

• Mixedness
• intermarriage
• whiteness
• indigenous peoples
• focus groups

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the CUNY Hunter College.

2 Prior to the focus groups, all participants signed informed consent and audiotape permission forms. Focus groups were digitally recorded and copious notes were taken during the interviews. After the interviews, the digital recordings were transcribed verbatim after removing any identifying information about the participants. The recordings were erased after transcribing and the transcripts were checked for accuracy before analysis.

3 Other studies such as Tilbury and Colic-Peisker (2006) also found that respondents focused on interethnic diversity such as Irish and Scottish migrants, when asking employers about employing diverse workers.

4 Perkins (2004) recounts a similar story of a Black man from the Caribbean island of St Vincent, who lived in Australia for years, yet did not perceive he experienced racism because he was not aboriginal.