The De/Construction of Identity: The Complexities of Loss and Separation for Mixed-Race Britain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review ‘The De/construction of Identity: The Complexities of Loss and Separation for Mixed Ethnic Populations in Britain’ article, submitted for consideration for the upcoming special issue of Genealogy, ‘The Manifestation and Contestation of White Privilege in Multiracial Families’.

The article attempts to explore the identities and lived experiences of mixed ethnic people within the British context, as it relates to the separation or loss of relatives from one of the ethnic heritages. This is a really interesting and important topic area around the links between connection to ethnic identity/ies and death/separation, and represents a largely overlooked specific area of focus within Critical Mixed Race Studies (CMRS). However, there are three main issues with the article at present, which will need addressing before recommendation for publication.

General comments:

The first is that the author does not seem to have a firm grasp of the existent Critical Mixed Race Studies literature, especially that which is based in the British context. Thus, one of the main premises of the article—that there is a ‘distinct lack’ of research in Britain—is incorrect. The literature review in the article is thin, relying heavily on only a handful of researchers, as well as not much recent mixed work on mixed ethnicity is included, even when researchers who are still active are referenced. The literature review needs to be greatly improved to include recent qualitative research on British mixed ethnicity, as it is not inexistant. However, if the author still wants to make the argument of the ‘distinct lack’ with these and other references considered, the claim needs to be supported with engagement of these and/or other relevant texts to show why the claim is viable in spite of recent work on this focus.

The list is not exhaustive, but here are some suggestions for broadening understanding of CMRS in Britain/more globally:

• Black Mixed-Race Men by Joseph-Salisbury
• Global Mixed Race edited by King-O’Riain et al.
• International Perspectives on Racial and Ethnic Mixedness and Mixing edited by Edwards et al.
• Making Mixed Race by Campion
• Mixed Race Amnesia by Mahtani (Global North focus)
• Mixed-Race in the US and UK by Sims and Njaka (not specific to Black-White)
• Mixed-Race, Post-Race by Ali (not specific to Black-White)
• ‘Mixed Race’ Studies: A Reader edited by Ifekwunigwe

Also look to recent journal articles by the above and others, and search more broadly for mixed ‘race’ rather than just ‘ethnicity’ (and derivatives).

The second issue is that of the strength and depth of the central argument. The core argument is a good one, but it gets lost at points in the analyses, which are at times weak, confusing, and contradicting. There are detailed specific comments below, but here are some broader areas of concern that need addressing:

• Conflation of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity,’ and no working definitions given for either. The same goes for ‘nationality’ and ‘culture,’ too.
• The article is framed by reference to CMRS, but there is often weak criticality given to concepts of ‘race’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘mixed’, and how these terms are operationalised in the British context. The weak criticality is also more broad, throughout framing and development of the argument, as well.
• The term ‘unique’ is used often without explanation, referring to something specific to people with mixed ethnicity. What exactly is meant by ‘unique’ vis-à-vis identity construction for mixed ethnic people? Usage of this type of word has been critiqued widely within CMRS.
• Be careful not to fall into the ‘tragic mulatto,’ ‘marginal man,’ or ‘mixed race celebration’ tropes that CMRS are also so critical of. ‘Mixed Race’ Studies: A Reader charts the ‘ages’ of (C)MRS in a helpful way that puts this comment into context. See also: work by Ranier Spencer (e.g., Challenging Multiracial Identity, Reproducing Race), Amalgamation Schemes by Jared Sexton, Mixed Race Amnesia by Minelle Mahtani, Souls of Mixed Folk by Michele Elam, etc.

The last issue is that of transparency and full disclosure. An undeclared affiliation and/or participation with Mixedracefaces is a potential conflict of interest, especially around its assessment as an ‘ideal’ dataset. The author needs to explicitly state any and all affiliations and whether the author is included in dataset. Table 2 does not appear to give a complete account for all of the selected case studies, so this also needs to be addressed, regardless.

For these reasons, I am recommending reconsideration after major revisions. I hope that the comments above and below help to strengthen the article to get it to a place for reconsideration, as the topic is an important one to consider regarding CMRS in Britain, as well as more broadly.

Additionally, there are several typos, missing letters, missing words, and formatting discrepancies throughout, and at least one missing reference in-line cited but not listed in full at the end. In-line citations with multiple citations are also not currently listed in alphabetical order.

 

Specific comments:

• Lines 8-9: Agreed that there is relatively little research on contemporary mixedness in Britain when compared to places such as the USA, but ‘distinct lack’ overstates this (see general comments above for examples contrary to this claim).
• Line 77: It is disputable that the government guidance ‘cited’ (without specific information about where the guidance appeared and when) reflected ‘overall attitudes’, as there has been quite a prevalence of mixed ethnic people in Britain since the Windrush era (and before). The time period stated by the author as ‘mid to late 1900s’ also does not fit well with the widely reported phenomenon (including in the Smith 2011 Guardian article cited) that the mixed population has been growing rapidly since the 1980s and 1990s (i.e., the ‘late 1900s’).
• Lines 145-146: The claim is provocative, but not entirely accurate. There is comparative research specifically on mixedness in the USA and UK that would dispute this claim (or at least clearly trouble it). See above for further research suggestions.
• Lines 207-208: There are ethical considerations for research involving children; perhaps specify what exactly is meant by this (e.g., how the proposed inclusion is envisaged) and discuss potential ethical issues and how they might be addressed in the call for research of this type.
• Line 228: Full citation needed. Is the (52) in reference to Senna, Dagbovie-Mullins, or Wolfson? Year is also needed. If it is Dagbovie-Mullins 2013: 52, edit to make it more clear, as it is not immediately obvious and the page reference could reasonably be attributed to any of the three authors, as currently written.
• Line 232: What is meant by ‘real life’?
• Lines 237-239: This claim needs unpacking, as it is not immediately clear what ‘colonial ties,’ ‘reclaiming unique identity,’ and ‘traditional narrative’ are referring to. Lines 247-252 do this a bit, so perhaps you could connect Jur 2022 to Goss 2022 more directly, as well as expand on what Goss 2022 says, which would also put them in better conversation with each other.
• Lines 255-259: Whilst this claim is accurate, who is arguing the opposite? With the lack of the existent contemporary qualitative research on mixed race in Britain referenced, this (and the general claims of the paper that there is a ‘distinct lack’ of this sort of research) is, again, overstated, misleading, and, frankly, incorrect.
• Lines 264-265: ‘Worldwide’? Can this claim be substantiated? By what metrics and means? Citations would be welcome, but also look at literature that critiques this type of generalization (e.g., as Western-centric/Atlantic-centric).
• Line 267: What are some of the drawbacks of such a secondary data source? Have these been considered at all? These should also be acknowledged and discussed (e.g., self-selection, editing by Mixedracefaces, non-representative, bias in mission, participants not giving direct consent to participate in research, etc.).
• Lines: 276-279: It is not clear why just ‘British’ and ‘English’ were used, rather than also including ‘Scottish,’ ‘Welsh,’ and possibly even ‘Northern Irish’ (if people in Northern Ireland can be considered ‘British’ for the purposes of research on British mixedness). This seems to introduce unnecessary bias toward the conflation of Britishness to Englishness, and further to whiteness. Perhaps this is confusion due to comprehension of the writing, but this dataset seems inconsistent and potentially confusing. Not all whiteness would come from ‘British’ or ‘English’ ancestry only (lines: 278-279), so it is unclear why Mixedracefaces would use that assumption, and how that might skew the results of the research.
• Line 287: Table 2 does not seem to have all nineteen respondents on it; see below for some omissions noted, but make sure to double check this to make sure it is complete and/or the omissions are explained.
• Lines 298-302: These sentences need clarification. Is the Mixedracefaces project ‘research,’ if it ‘not scholarly,’ but ‘social’? Author also states that Mixedracefaces’ ‘research’ has not been done before in academia, but there is academic research on both global/international mixed race and mixed race in Britain (and the Netherlands, as well). There have also been surveys/questionnaires conducted around mixed race, so it is confusing what these sentences are trying to convey and contrast.
• Line 357: The British/Ghanaian respondent does not seem to be listed on Table 2.
• Lines 385-387: Here is a good example of why it is important not to conflate ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’. What does ‘monoraciality’ have to do with mixed ethnicity, in terms of separation/loss? Is it feasible that a White Irish/White French person living in Britain may have comparable experiences after separation/loss to what a White British/Black Caribbean person might experience? How about an Asian Chinese/Asian Filipina person living in Britain? Does the racial element significantly alter the experiences of having a mixed ethnic background? Are any of these three people more or less ‘mixed ethnic’ than the others?
• Line 394: Though ‘white’ is not an ethnic heritage, the wording of this sentence reads as though it implies that only minority ethnicities are considered ‘ethnic’. Author may want to consider editing to clarify intent.
• Line 406: What is meant by ‘racial trauma’? This concept needs to be explained and referenced, either here or in another area where it is used in the text.
• Lines 416-417: What is meant by ‘impacting…emotional labour’? Concept needs explanation, preferably with examples of it and how it is ‘impacted’.
• Lines 417-421: Whilst perhaps an accurate argument, it is not anchored well in the data preceding it. The dots need much better connecting between the data, what is happening in mixed ethnic families, how this connects to the rest of the country and its racial illiteracy (which, as written, implies that it is not a ‘unique’ issue of mixed ethnic families, which then raises the question of the significance of the data cited), and how understanding how mixed ethnicity specifically helps to understand ‘non-white identity’ in the context of white supremacy—particularly since all of the profiles used have some white ancestry, so is this being erased by having non-white ancestry, too? As written, this strongly seems to imply a (problematic) hypodescendant conception of mixed ethnicity that mirrors the USA’s former ‘one-drop rule’.
• Line 423: The English/Iranian respondent does not seem to be listed on Table 2.
• Line 431: Explain and/or give examples of the ‘specific identity negotiation processes’ referenced.
• Lines 431-432: What does the ‘that’ refer to, which has ‘increased immigration and discrimination for migrants’?
• Line 433: What does ‘these’ refer to, vis-à-vis ‘social relations’? Which social relations?
• Line 436: Which mixed ethnicity perspective? Is there just one? If so, outline what aspects of Lipsitz’s (2002) model are being used.
• Line 449: The concept of ‘racial literacy’ needs explanation, if used as a theme to explore. See also comment for lines 417-421: a clarification of the concept might help to connect the dots of that argument.
• Lines 451-452: The implication that mixed ethnic people are having ‘specific’ mental health issues reads as problematically reifying and stereotyping of an entire population. There is a citation (where the conclusion is much more nuanced than summarised and only uses one British-based data source), but there is no mental health condition specific to mixed ethnic people á la the ‘tragic mulatto’.
• Line 453: What is meant by ‘family trauma’? See also comment for line 406: The concept of ‘trauma’ and how its being operationalised needs to be explained, ideally with citations.
• Line 456: What does ‘multiracially literate’ mean, both generally and in this context?
• Lines 463-466: The ‘missed ethnic perspectives’ that are cited above are not really as ‘missed’ as claimed, given that there is current academic research that mirrors these types of personal anecdotes. Also unsure of what is meant by ‘trauma, struggle, and resistance’ and how these are shifting perceptions from what has been documented in academic research already.
• Lines 466-469: Previously the dataset was described as ‘ideal’; this seems to contradict that claim (see comments for line 267). The closing sentence is quite unclear, but although additional focus and research in the area of mixed ethnicity—especially in the British context—is very welcome, there are both previous and current scholars attempting to do the exact same thing.
• Line 472: The English/Korean respondent does not seem to be listed on Table 2.
• Line 493-495: The links between ‘colonised territories’ and ‘racist family dynamics’ needs a bit more unpacking/explanation, especially in how it directly relates to the data and author’s insights from it.
• Line 546: The argument that there is ‘a distinct’ experience for mixed ethic people seems reifying. There are a range of experiences in the limited dataset cited, and the paper has not shown, rightly, that there is a universal or ‘unique’ experience that only mixed ethnic people have. This is okay and is still valuable insight—there is no need to overstate and stereotype in order to make scholarly arguments and add to scholarly conversation and literature.
• Lines 549-550: What exactly is meant by ‘monoracial racist structures’ and how is this concept being operationalised, especially this late in the paper? As a new concept, it reads oddly to have it introduced near the end, just before the conclusion.
• Line 564: Again, the Oh et al. 2024 paper only has one British dataset, so it is not a reliable source for making general conclusions about mixed ethnic mental health in Britain.
• Lines 567-571: There is a contradiction in this paragraph, which corroborates that academic research has been done in the British context. There has been no ‘failure’ of British scholarship if ‘several academics’, as the author acknowledges here, are doing this exact type of research. Academic scholarship should be positioned as in relationship with and in conversation with one another, not as siloed or as ‘lone hero,’ so to speak. In this case, that continued latter positioning throughout the paper reveals great unfamiliarity with the relevant literature, rather than as pioneering in the research area.

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think your research topic is very interesting, unique and timely! I made some comments in the attached file- please consider these comments and suggestions for revisions and additions to this paper. Thank you very much!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I made comments about their use of English in the attachment that I provided to the authors. Overall, there are grammatical errors and errors in verb tenses throughout the paper that make it a bit confusing and awkward to read at times. 

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the well-revised ‘The De/construction of Identity: The Complexities of Loss and Separation for Mixed-Race Britain’ article, resubmitted for reconsideration for the upcoming special issue of Genealogy, ‘The Manifestation and Contestation of White Privilege in Multiracial Families’.

The article attempts to explore the identities and lived experiences of mixed-race people within the British context, as it relates to the separation or loss of relatives from one of the racialised identities. This is a really interesting and important topic area around the links between connection to racialised identity/ies and death/separation, and represents a largely overlooked specific area of focus within Critical Mixed Race Studies (CMRS).

This revised version of the article is much improved regarding the literature review and core argument development. Overall, the framing tighter, making it more powerful for setting up the research. However, there are a couple of general issues with the currency of references (e.g., published within the last five years) and arguments that could use more exploration and/or clarification to improve the article even more.

General comments:

Generally, the references have improved, but there are still old ones (many 10+ years old) that are relied too heavily upon in theory development. They are suitable as foundational, but many of these theories have been much developed by other scholars since, and should be better integrated to demonstrate a clear understanding of the current state of mixed-race research in Britain. The omission of current British scholars of mixed-race remains stark.

The inaccessibility of scholarly material is a big problem within academia, so this barrier is understood. However, in order to publish scholarly work that is current and relevant, it is imperative to access and cite recent publications from various sources in order to become conversant in current debate and contribute to that current academic conversation. The author should connect with their institutional, alumni and/or local university library and seek assistance from a subject librarian to access subscriptions to scholarly journal databases and recent monograph publications. If the library does not hold specific books in its collection, interlibrary loan is a great way to secure these titles. Library staff can assist with this. Additionally, it may be worth reaching out to individual authors, as they are generally happy to share copies of articles and/or book chapters when asked by students or colleagues.

There have been several recent (in the last five years) special issues within MDPI (e.g., Social Sciences, Genealogy) that have had mixed race as a theme, and some articles have specifically been about British/European contexts. They should be open access, so search for those as additional sources that are free at the point of use.

There is a possible logical inconsistency throughout the article that would benefit from further clarification or tightening to make the article stronger. Throughout, the author critiques ‘monoracialism’, but the framing of the article and exploration of the narratives read very much as an ‘either/or’ for racialised identity rather than offering examples of or pathways for a ‘mixed-race’ identity comprising of affiliations with all racialised heritages (whatever that may look like).

It is interesting that the narratives selected for the research all have this commonality of monoracialism, but is it really only due to a compulsion or force by an external ‘society’? What all else could be at play? Do mixed-race people not have agency? It seems apparent that the selected narratives do contain monoracial paradigms, but it is not clear from the data or the arguments exactly where it is coming from. Yes, ‘white supremacy’ in the grand scheme, but it seems as though rather than resistance or resilience (as argued), these paradigms are being accepted and reproduced by the subjects (or…maybe it is a bit of both!). How is ‘white supremacy’ operationalised in this specific context? How is it resisted? As always, there is nuance when considering qualitive data and human subjects, so it is important to engage with this with more granularity, because the more broad generations reveal these sorts of logical inconsistencies and lack of clarity that confuse the argument.

Personal declarations and caveats around Mixedracefaces research are good practice and welcome additions.

Because of the vast improvement and novelty of this important and really interesting topic, I am recommending ‘acceptance with minor revisions’, but please treat the comments as though they are ‘moderate’ (meaning, the level of corrections needed are more than ‘minor’, but they do not reach the level of ‘reconsideration after major revisions’). I hope that the comments above and below continue to help to strengthen the article, as well as support the author’s continued research career.

Additionally, there are several typos, missing letters, missing words, and formatting discrepancies throughout (not all listed below). In-line citations with multiple citations are also still not listed in alphabetical order.

 

Specific comments:

• Lines 65-68: The argument is somewhat understood, but it also reads as somewhat dated, as ‘mixed ethnicity’ in Britain has also been broadly normalised by the inclusion on the census and demographics forms since 2001. How does the author reconcile these counterpoints? More recent citation could be useful here.
• Lines 73-75: Assuming the language of ‘rights’ is coming directly from Maria P. P. Root’s work on the ‘Bill of Rights for People of Mixed Heritage’ (as she is cited here) and that this paragraph is talking about mixed race generally, the activism of Root does not make this legally true universally (e.g., one cannot legally call themselves ‘mixed race’ in places as near as France or Germany). Invoking the language of ‘rights’ is a complex area where the needed, more nuanced discussion about the type rights, the (il)legalities, where they apply and do not apply, and why would likely be well beyond the remit of this article. But as invoked, it is not a generally accurate statement and needs further engagement (and unfortunately, specifying a limit of national focus would not be sufficient to address this comment). If ‘rights’ is not referencing Root’s activism as assumed, then please add clarification and a little contextualisation to explain what is meant.
• Line 104-105: Is ‘monoethnic’ a typo? If not, explain how it is different from the previously used ‘monoracial’.
• Lines 110-113: Be careful here, as migration to Britain did not start with the Windrush. That seems implied, even though it is not explicitly stated.
• Lines 114-117: ‘The public consciousness formally recognised…’ reads awkwardly and it is not exactly clear what is meant by this. The reasons for ‘mixed ethnicity’ added to the census is much more complicated than simply the ‘size’ of mixed-race populations. Further, the increase in percentages is not necessarily solely due to numbers. Additional recent research into literature specifically on mixed race and the census in Britain could be helpful here.
• Line 144: Minor correction—consider using Dame Jessica Ennis-Hill’s current name and title.
• Lines 175-178: Either a sentence fragment, missing word, or the meaning is otherwise unclear. Regardless, be careful about using one case study to attribute supposed widespread trends, especially if that was not the intended purpose of the cited material. This is an interesting correlation, but it can be worded so as not to overstate the implications of the research.
• Lines 202-205: This is an interesting argument. Could it be developed a bit more with more recent citations added, as shifts in broad societal ‘racial literacy’ have shifted massively in the 22 years since the Song 2003 book was published, with social media, wide-scale social movements, and the wider cognition and presence of mixed race across Britain?
• Lines 287-288: What are some examples of the ‘harmful monoracial narratives’? Are these inherently harmful, or is there something specific that makes them harmful in these cases?
• Line 558: Possible typo: a full content analysis was not completed on 540 narratives, correct?
• Line 573: Possible typo: a full thematic analysis was not completed on 121 narratives, correct? Reserving the term ‘thematic analysis’ was more appropriately used in the previous version about the 19 narratives used in the research, based on how the methods were previously described (see line 582).
• Line 610: Incomplete reference.
• Lines 613-614: Incomplete reference; cite Hall and Olumide directly and add to references section.
• Lines 635: White people are raced, as well, as whiteness studies demonstrates. Might want to reword to indicate that you are talking about minoritised racial designations.
• Line 653: Missing word in the quotation?
• Lines 663-664: White people are also racialised; again, as whiteness studies demonstrates. Be careful not to fall into the implicit implications of whiteness as ‘neutral’ or ‘default’, as exposing these biases is one of the main points of departure for the criticality of mixed-race studies and race studies.
• Line 682: Is this the same respondent as previously mentioned (English/Malawian)? Or is this a new respondent who has Ghanaian ancestry? If the latter, this next respondent needs a clearer introduction.
• Lines 682-684: Here is a good example as to why it is not good practice to rely so heavily on very old references. Times have changed drastically since 1992 and 2003, and subsequently so have ethnic/racial ‘options’, general modes of identity construction, and understandings about those and other modes of identity construction; in addition to many other social factors at play over 22/33 years. Many other scholars have developed theory in these areas over this time period, and so the author’s limited familiarity with primarily old sources only weakens the current relevance of the findings in this article. Broader familiarity would help to examine more about these nuances in situations like this (lines 685-687), allowing the author to develop the theory further.
• Lines 707-709: Why is this the case? This is an interesting observation; can it be elaborated upon with recent literature to examine the reasonings behind this found trend?
• Lines 796-799: Only one source listed is from a British/comparative context, so the other citations are misleading for the claim being made, as what is happening in one context does not necessarily overlay neatly onto what is happening in another. Include additional recent British references to corroborate claims about the British context, and/or comparative research to argue for similarities across context.
• Line 843: See previous comment about usages of ‘rights’ (lines 73-75).
• Line 844: What is meant by the claim that ‘monoracial societies’ continue to conceptualise race as ‘binary’ and ‘static’? Quick counterpoints: in Britain and the USA, racialised census categories are revisited and adjusted between census cycles, so even at a national level, there is demonstration of shifting ideas of race. The fact that both nations added the ability to identify as mixed race in 2001/2000, respectively—after the Root reference and just prior to the Daniel reference—at the very least ‘troubles’ the assertion that race in these societies operates strictly in a ‘binary’ sense (i.e., ‘white/non-white’ or ‘white/Black’) or that they have no ability to shift in racialised conceptions or understandings over time. Not to belabour the point, but additional reading of recent literature will help the author here.
• Lines 862-865: This operationalisation of binary racialised ideas in society is interesting. If this is what is meant by the argument from line 844, then clarity, specificity, and nuance is needed in the development of this argument, as the ideas in the counterpoints made above need to be addressed. That is to say: the argument as originally made, without explanation/exploration in its premise, is unclear and seemed dated—both in substance and additionally by the references used—and does not take into account aspects of society that do not neatly fit into the broad claim.
• Lines 901-902: Historically, sure, but the claim that contemporarily, mixed-race people in Britain are seen as a ‘threat to society’ is not reflective of mainstream British attitudes. This needs unpacking, contextualisation, and further referencing.
• Line 945: What does a ‘more racialised identity’ mean?
• Lines 946-947: How does a white identity lack cultural identity?
• Lines 1013-1014: The point about the interplay of monoracialism and colourism is understood, but it was not immediately clear because in other contexts, colourism can also afford mixed-race people proximity to whiteness and/or favouritism as more preferred members of their minoritised group (i.e., hypodescendent monoracialism) because of their visual proximity to whiteness and/or ability to pass as white or as ‘ethnically ambiguous’. So, consider expanding on this argument to allow for the nuances of this interplay and to bring the reader along towards the intended argument.
• Lines 1039-1042: Why, in the general framing of the article, is a British/Jamaican foster child being placed with a Jamaican carer seen as being placed with someone who ‘represents her background,’ but if she were placed with a ‘British’ carer, she would not have been? Acknowledging that these specific lines include references to a subject’s own description, this is still an example of the logical inconsistencies of the article framing outlined above and that need to be further grappled with and explained, because the implicit assumptions therein reproduce the same racialised logic that is purported to be critiqued by the article.
• Lines 1089-1090: Linked to comments above, this summary argument reveals the gaps alluded to in the previous review around depth. The author posits that Britain is a binary country and then uses that assumption to explore why mixed-race people [something—missing word!] their identity to fit into this binary. Only the premise of what is meant by this binary society is not argued for or explored with enough depth, and it is not clear why mixed-race people are necessarily compelled to do so rather than exploring other means of developing identity with their own agency (as they have the ‘right’ to do). Developing these aspects would greatly strengthen the argument by addressing questions around the framing of how race functions in Britain and how (mixed-race) identity is not something that is merely imposed externally.
• Line 1158: Where do the ‘mixed/multiple ethnicity’ options on British demographic forms and the census fit into the claiming of ‘a’ racial identity? Although very imperfect, don’t these options disrupt, to some extent, the need to choose only one race for a majority of mixed-race people in Britain?
• Lines 1163-1171: Yes, it is important for people to self-identify (although, as noted above, the 1992-2002 references are outdated in this respect, as there are now official ways to do so in the USA and Britain), and all of the people in the study have done exactly that, though the author is still finding evidence of monoracialism in the shared narratives. So, it is unclear where the challenge to monoracial paradigms is to be located, as the narratives were submitted to Mixedracefaces through personal agency and the argument has not been convincingly made as to how ‘society’ is the sole/primary culprit for the identity de/construction resulting after a loss or separation. There are links to this aspect of monoracialism, and some have been mentioned throughout the article, but these need to be clearly and explicitly articulated at a more granular level to explain the operationalisation of these big concepts and to draw the grand throughline of the article more clearly.
• Line 1193: ‘Monoethnic’ or monoracial?

Author Response

Please see attached document for reviewer comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf