We thank Allison Anoll for her close read of our book. Although we are limited to a relatively brief response, we did want to note a few points in response to the stimulating points she made.
First, our “Roots of Race” conceptualization argues that multiple components feed into how race is experienced. There are a number of possible “roots” of varying importance or influence in this construct—e.g., one’s ethnoracial identification, skin color, political views, and socioeconomic status. Anoll rightly asks what influences one’s ethnoracial identification itself if not some combination of these other roots? As we summarize in Chapter 2, “specifically, we argue that the construct of race and the role of skin color in this construct are not static but instead are constantly shifting and evolving. Skin color and the other components of race are not independent but highly interconnected” (p. 19). Our view is that the roots analogy attempts to represent this complex interplay of factors. Put differently, we believe that the roots have the potential to shape each other just as they shape the larger race construct.
A second important point raised is with respect to measurement using the spectrophotometer device. Of course, skin color varies throughout the body. As with any project, our measurement decisions—namely, focusing on the hand and wrist—influence the measurements we have and the potential patterns we are able to uncover. For example, other studies take skin tone measurements from more “hidden” places, such as the armpit. We opted for a balance of being less intrusive while still obtaining a measurement appropriate for our research questions. More specifically, Anoll wonders “how does the machine deal with imperfections or disturbances like scars, hair, or freckles?” In short, the spectrophotometer assesses the portion of the skin visible under its lens and produces an averaged measure of the overall lightness and darkness of that “snapshot.” This means that if, for example, a person has a mole where the measurement snapshot is taken, their skin tone reading would be assessed as slightly darker than if there was not a mole. On the rare occasions when a participant had a noticeable discoloration of the skin (most often from tattoos) where we traditionally took our measurements, we instead took our measurement from a neighboring location, such as slightly higher on the forearm.
A final point of response is related to the racial boundaries around whiteness. Anoll questions whether our argument, that the racial boundaries around whiteness have blurred in part due to increasing diversification, is sufficient, or whether other factors—e.g., “changing norms that value diversity,” growth in the “non-white middle and upper class,” or “increased rates of multi-racial children”—may play important roles. We fully agree that the latter two points are likely to induce a potential status threat response among whites, particularly those with darker skin themselves. It is less clear to us how changing norms around diversity would similarly contribute to perceptions of racial boundaries. At a minimum, our finding that darker-skinned whites hold more conservative views on racialized issues suggests that any such norms are not taken up equally among whites. Drawing from Anoll’s own research, though, we believe that examining how such norms may influence perceptions is a valuable potential opportunity for future research.
