The Impact of White Supremacy on First-Generation Mixed-Race Identity in Post-Apartheid South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I commend the author on a sound and compelling study. The research question is focused and the significance is clear. I have a few comments that should yield improvements given the high quality of the study as is.

1. Should Omi and Winant's racial formation theory be cited? It fits within critical race theory and aligns with the South African case quite well.

2. If it is true that purposive sampling preceded snowball sampling, please mention them in that order. Also, perhaps define each sampling technique for readers who may not know the logic of each. A quick sentence or two should do the trick.

3. Some of the writing can be sharpened: "added an additional challenge..."

4. More information on data analysis procedures would be welcome. See https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/2/64 as an example.

5. Consider specifying that the personal, social, and political are overlapping realms of interaction and experience. They are distinguished here for analytical purposes.

6. I'm not sure that leading with the language dimensions of the political sphere is the best opening salvo. The structure (rules and resources) associated with politics seem to be a more appropriate lead there. Language is certainly shaped by political structures that confer differential privilege, but the structures may be the best point of initial analysis.

Excellent work here!

Language is very good. Another round of copy editing is always a good thing, but no major issues are apparent.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my paper. Your feedback has been most useful in sharpening my paper.

I have addressed your concerns in the following way:

1. “Should Omi and Winant's racial formation theory be cited? It fits within critical race theory and aligns with the South African case quite well.”

• I have included their racial formation theory as a citation and with a brief statement on page 7. I have also included it on page 8 as well.

2. “If it is true that purposive sampling preceded snowball sampling, please mention them in that order. Also, perhaps define each sampling technique for readers who may not know the logic of each. A quick sentence or two should do the trick.”

• I have reordered sample information and included a quick descriptive sentence on each on page 8.

3. Some of the writing can be sharpened: "added an additional challenge..."

• I have edited the whole document again, rephrased and sharpened the language.

4. More information on data analysis procedures would be welcome. See https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/2/64 as an example.

• I have included further information which can be found on page 8.

5. Consider specifying that the personal, social, and political are overlapping realms of interaction and experience. They are distinguished here for analytical purposes.

• I agree with this comment and have added a sentence that reiterates the overlapping nature of these spheres on page 8.

6. I'm not sure that leading with the language dimensions of the political sphere is the best opening salvo. The structure (rules and resources) associated with politics seem to be a more appropriate lead there. Language is certainly shaped by political structures that confer differential privilege, but the structures may be the best point of initial analysis.

• This was a great point, thank you. I have rephrased the first paragraph of the ‘political sphere’ section to include the role of political structures in creating and sustaining levels of privilege. This can be found on page 13.

Thank you again for your helpful comments!

Reviewer 2 Report

Author (NN)

This article is an interesting scrutiny of the impact of white supremacy from a first-generation mixed-race perspective of 10 interviewees and the author. There are a number of issues to be dealt with in order to be publishable. First of all, the text needs an extra round of evolvement in order to be more precise in language and content. Several minor revisions are necessary. Secondly, the structure is such that the reader has to wait an awful long time before any primary material emerges. Mostly, the literary section is long and does not delivery anything new. Once the material comes it is weak and unfocused.  

 NN’s background is introduced several times. Yet, it is not included in a self-reflexive way. What does it mean for NN’s background mean for the production of results? Is NN living in SA or abroad – and what does that mean for the empirical material and the analysis? NN should also acknowledge the diversity of views and experience of the categories author belongs to and used analytically. Finally, NN should provide some sense of the constituency of this category. 

NN writes “This paper explores the constructions of white supremacy, specifically its role in shaping the perceptions of first-generation mixed-race identity in South Africa” Such sentences are ambiguous. ‘As if ‘white supremacy is an external construction outside the life of the first-generation – but impacting it? NN contributes primarily with interviewees reflections about whites, whiteness, and supremacy, but not really the very construction of white supremacy as ideology, policy, and internalized habitus. 

 NN’s use of contemporary racial, racist categories is confusing, while the apartheid system use is clearly presented. The use of post-apartheid system racial categories is unresolved and not least when it comes to the categorization of interviewees. NN uses “race” to distinguish parents, but does not answer when, under what conditions and circumstances do interviewees make use of racial and racist categories from the apartheid? One major criticism could be that categories are imposed upon the interviewees while use of not-racial as well as actual self-categorization is ignored. This is further complicated by the fact that interview responses are normative, seemingly every day philosophical speculations and not departing from actual, events and incidents from their everyday lives. Likewise, these talks about their problematic relationship to parents seems to exist “outside of time and place”. Some talk about their high school days, which logically would be maybe 10-12 years after the official end of the apartheid system. The way individual parents are talked about is in several case derogatory! Perhaps, this is a reflection of a too narrow questions formulated generally around race and racism (?).

An example of the incompleteness and lack of precision in interviews can be seen at 485ff with Pramit.  NN writes that Pramit’s gendered and racialised experiences are intersectionally different to that of his mother. In this way, he feels a further loss of connection because he does not see his lived experiences as shared. Pramit can say this – even if it is very much in hind sight, but NN cannot. NN cannot know, since NN did not talk to the mother of Pramit. Moreover, does NN (really) claim that if “lived experiences” are not shared that implies disconnection (whatever that means)? Can this be narrowed down to a racial issue or is it much more complex?

Concepts that are no so clear: 

Experience, lived experience. Author is not really dealing with actual lived experience but people talking about lived experience in a general, normative philosophical manner. 

Identity. Author uses the concept of identity as social identity, where the persona is in focus, but ignoring self-identity. Many scholars, including Mbembe (whom NN references) writes that anti-racist struggles almost always start with the desire and right to be regarded as a human being. Not being the first name, the second name, the skin colour, but whom they are as human beings, which is their real identity and from where self-categorization comes from.

Intersectionality. Levels going into intersectional analysis includes talk about experiences, for instance, in Yuval Davis’ treatment of intersectionality. However, intersectionality does not study actual lived experience or perception, but finds the concept relevant for analysis of post-experience talk. This is not really, as scholars of experiences would have it, how experience happens. This will occur as a kind of gestalt that does not initially divide into need “sections”. That only comes afterwards. 

For these three concepts, NN should present them as deliberate choices, NN have made among several options and showing NN is aware of these differences. When it comes to Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, author should acknowledge these as huge umbrella terms that includes a whole range of schools and traditions of thoughts and individual uses and then explain NN’s choices. This is extra-important given the fairly weak interviewees, which therefore need to be accompanied with a stronger analytical inscription.

There is a tension between saying the white supremacy of today is largely intact and elsewhere describing large differences. This is a core component of the article and needs to be crystal clear and sharp. This might also help NN turn tease out some positive “solutions” or paths forward. 

As a potential reader, I would prefer not know about the interviews being used for the master degree. It begs devastating criticism. 

If NN can re-write in a more precise way what is done and what is not done, then the text can be made publishable.

Language is very good

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and careful consideration of my paper. I found your feedback to be incredibly useful in sharpening and strengthening my paper.

I have responded to your comments in the following way:

1. Language and content revisit

• I have done another in-depth edit and read of the text to sharpen the language and to readjust or remove content that does not aid in furthering my arguments.

2. Length of literary section

• I agree with this comment, I have removed the section the old section of 2.3. Sustaining White Supremacy. And then removed the old title of Maintaining White Purity and changed it to 2.2. Sustaining White Supremacy.

3. Authors self-reflexivity

• Although I had believed that a positionality statement in the methodology section would be sufficient, I agree that this statement could be more in-depth. I have included the discussion on my current location within the first introductory paragraph on page 1. I have also added further information on what my positionality and background mean for the results in the methodology section on page 8 as a strengthening of the original positionality statement.

4. Conceptualising white supremacy

• I have rephrased the discussion on white supremacy to include its construction – specifically related to ideology, policy, and habitus, which can be found throughout the analysis section – to locate the participant's responses within the structure of white supremacy. In addition, I have clarified when I am talking about whiteness as an institution or as a structural system throughout the analysis as well. I have also ensured that the discussion of white supremacy in the literature section, also speaks specifically to this point as well.

5. Participants use of racial categories:

• I have included information about participants' self-identification on page 8.

6. I have addressed the comments on how to better phrase the analysis in relation to the interview quotes by adding more clarification to my arguments, especially to the analysis of Pramit’s quote on page 9. I also edited some of the language concerning the discussions of the parents and made sure that discussions about the parents is directly linked to what participants said about their parents and not what I have inferred.
7. Redefining concepts:
   1. Experience – I understand that the participant's descriptions of their experiences are reflections on events and moments in their lives that have already happened, however, these reflections come from and are informed by their lived experiences. I have framed participants' quotes as reflections.
   2. Identity – I have included how participants self-identify in the beginning of section 5 and have also ensured that I refer to this throughout the analysis.

• Intersectionality - I have clarified my interpretation of intersectionality to show that it is used as a theoretical and practical framework to understand how a person’s identity interacts within and is shaped by multiple systems of power. I have explained intersectionality within the main literature describing intersectionality, including criticisms of how intersectionality has been used on page 6. Concerning how intersectionality deals with lived experiences, I would argue that intersectionality was specifically created to deal with lived experiences. I struggled to find alternative ways to re-phrase this and would be open to suggestions for alternative phrasing.

8. Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality

• I have added additional information to acknowledge both theories as umbrella terms and have reiterated their usefulness for this study on page 7.

9. Tensions between current and past understandings of white supremacy:

• I have made sure to be consistent throughout the paper to highlight how the structures of whiteness remain intact in the post-apartheid era.

10. I have removed that this research was conducted for a master’s degree.

Thank you so much for your detailed, considered, and extremely useful comments!