Internalized Oppression Among Young Women of Colour in Norway: Exploring the Racialized Self

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well researched and well written contribution. I have only very minor suggestions for improvement:

1. Given Fanon's training as a psychoanalyst during a time when Freud's framework was dominant, I suggest highlighting the problems resulting from a Black or otherwise non-white person adopting a white super ego. My suggestion is to go a bit deeper into Fanon's writings.
2. On line 522, speech is mentioned. However, there are no examples provided for how these individuals adapted their speech and performed "white speech." If there are any empirical examples, please include them.
3. Pierre Bourdieu's Language and Symbolic Power (2003) might be helpful as a theoretical framework to do so.
4. In line 230, I was surprised to read that the interview quote refers to "butts." Should that not be "butt?" In US usage, we only have one butt.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1

Comment 1: Given Fanon's training as a psychoanalyst during a time when Freud's framework was dominant, I suggest highlighting the problems resulting from a Black or otherwise non-white person adopting a white super ego. My suggestion is to go a bit deeper into Fanon's writings.

Response 1: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the importance of further engaging with Fanon’s psychoanalytic framework. In the updated version, we have deepened our discussion of Fanon’s (1986) psychoanalytic perspective while also mention Freud’s (1923) theory of superego formation. More specifically, we now interpret Ana’s (23) hair-straightening ritual as both a literal and psychic submission to whiteness, guided by an internalized white superego, a psychological authority that silently governs behavior, appearance, and belonging according to dominant white ideals. This expanded analysis draws directly on Fanon’s insights and helps illuminate how racialized beauty practices can reflect deeper psychic structures shaped by colonial histories. Originally, this passage appeared on page 9, sentence 409, but due to restructuring of the manuscript, where the empirical material has been moved earlier, this discussion now appears in a different location, but in the same chapter.

Comment 2: On line 522, speech is mentioned. However, there are no examples provided for how these individuals adapted their speech and performed "white speech." If there are any empirical examples, please include them. Pierre Bourdieu's Language and Symbolic Power (2003) might be helpful as a theoretical framework to do so.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We do not have explicit examples of this in our material. Therefore, we have chosen to tone down this section.

Comments 3: In line 230, I was surprised to read that the interview quote refers to "butts." Should that not be "butt?" In US usage, we only have one butt.

Response 1: Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree with your comment and have revised the wording to ensure both clarity and formality. Specifically, on page 5, sentence 230, we have replaced the term “butts” with “bottom” to align with more formal academic language. We appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped improve the tone and consistency of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Internalized Oppression and the Racialized Self in Norway

This article addresses racism experienced by people of color in Norway, an important and under-studied aspect. Based on interviews, the message regarding internalized negative racist thinking is clear and significant. While the message about the prevalence of racist thought is compelling, there are several issues that need to be addressed. I suggest making many minor revisions rather than undertaking a major rewrite. With proper handling of these, I recommend the article for publication.

Throughout the article, a major concern is the lack of depth in the analysis, the critical treatment of concepts, and the neglect of the socio-historical processes that shape these concepts and arguments. Freire, Fanon, and Goff in Epstein (neither of whom appear in the references) provide important insights, but they must be adapted to the specific geographic and historical context discussed. Even though “race” (defined here as skin color) is a common concept, it is fluid, constantly reinventing itself, and varies significantly across different contexts.

It is often said among racism scholars that racism is more than anything a vehicle for other forms of dehumanization. Consequently, the article should include discussions on other forms of dehumanization, US-THEM relations (with US always being superior), harassment, marginalization, exclusions, and similar phenomena. Andersson’s definition of racism is overly psychological and reductive – as seen also in much political science – confining it to attitudes. Relations of power must be incorporated into the definition.

Døving’s edited volume on racism is relevant here. For instance, the issue of “Kan man se norsk ut” (Erdal’s chapter) could be incorporated. Furthermore, the lens through which racism is seen, such as the sight of skin color or headscarves, is becoming outdated. In this perspective, the focus is on the “victims” rather than the “perpetrators.” This approach is akin to examining a child’s red spots without diagnosing the measles or other illnesses of which the red spots are merely a symptom. This is not to say that racism doesn’t have an impact, which the author has convincingly demonstrated.

With a more precise elaboration of what constitutes racism in the article, one must ask the difficult question: is it racism that is internalized, or is it all the negative, racist bias? Reads like racist thinking, but that is not the same thing as exerting racist exclusion and attacks, right? It is evident from the interviews that participants interpret their prior experiences through ideas they learned later in life. This presents a methodological challenge. When multiple dimensions (nationalism, class, gender, religion, age) are at play simultaneously, the researcher must be careful not to project a single dimension onto the experience. Moreover, most of what we internalize operates at the level of unconscious awareness (Bourdieu).

Therefore, when we internalize racist thinking, does that make a person experiencing racism? Does such an interpretation not require a distinction between intentional, declared acts of racism and unintentional, undeclared racist thinking? Even though the consequences for victims may be the same, understanding what is internalized requires nuance and care. This is not to say that racism cannot be exerted unintentionally. Similarly, the connection of shifts in style with white supremacism is abrupt and requires better argumentation if it is to be maintained. I suggest focusing on shifts in identity and avoiding an overreliance on terms like white supremacism, colonialism, and coloniality. Research that overlooks historical and geographic context is easily dismissed, so if these claims are made, they must be substantiated with references and well-developed arguments. Even if coloniality can be traced back hundreds of years, it is not an automatic process. Disciplines that consider power relations insist that “race” (and other forms of subordination) must be renewed and recontextualized to remain operative.

The US-THEM distinction in relation to belonging is mentioned in the text as important. Research from other Nordic countries has shown that the nationalist US-THEM division is largely a white-majority construct, defining who belongs geographically to the territory (via nationalism and sovereignty) and with minorities being reduced to the status of foreigners or even guests with annoying differences. Ethnic minority anti-racist activists have also unconsciously internalized a US-THEM division, wherein US (people of color) are those who experience and understand racism, while others do not.

The theme of changing hairstyles, clothes, plastic surgery, names, and ways of speaking is well-covered globally. However, what is missing is an analysis of how and when these adaptations differ from changes made for market-oriented reasons, whether for employment, fashion, romance, or other purposes even as they often embeds racist categories and racist thinking. At the beginning of the article, the author moves abruptly from the topic of removing hair to internalized racism, inviting easy critique. The author needs to tread carefully here, as this field is subject to particularly fierce criticism and attacks.

How does the author interpret the opposite trend? For instance, “African” hairstyles are now seen in Norway among individuals with no kin ties to Africa, while others have, at some point in their lives, used chemical hair relaxers to straighten their hair or bleached it in pursuit of becoming true blondes.

Smaller issues:

 

This article covers racism experienced by people of color in Norway, which is a super important, under-studied aspect. Based on interviews the message about internalized negative racist thinking is clear and significant. However, while agreeing on the message, about the prevalence of racist thought, there are many issues to be addressed. I suggest many minor revisions rather than a major rewriting. With proper handling of these, I recommend publication.

Throughout the article a major concern is the lack of critical unfolding of the analysis, treatment of concepts, and the ignorance of the socio-historical processes these concepts and arguments come from. Freire, Fanon, Goff in Epstein (neither are in the references) do have important input, but they must be re-worked for new geographic and historical context. Even if “race” (here as skin color) is common, the concept of “race” is fluid, reinventing itself, and differ also in different contexts.

The saying among racism scholars is that racism is more than anything a vehicle for something else. Therefore, other forms of dehumanization, US-THEM relations (US is always superior), harassment and so on must be included. Andersson’s definition of racism is psychological and reduced – like in much political science – to attitudes. Power must be part of the definition.

Døving’s edited volume om racism is relevant. For instance, the issue of “Kan man se norsk ut” (Erdals chapter). In addition, way of seeing racism caused by the sight of skin-color or headscarfs is becoming outdated. In this view the focus is “victims” and not on the “perpetrator.” It is like looking at the child’s red spots, and not the measles or other illness of which red spots are but a symptom. This is not to say, racism doesn’t have effect, which the author has convincingly shown.

With a more elaborate precision of what is racism in the article, one has to ask the difficult question, is it racism that is internalized or is it all the negative, racist bias? It is obvious from interviews, that they read something into their prior experiences, which they learned later in life. That’s is a methodological challenge. When many dimensions (nationalism, class, gender, religion, age) is at play simultaneously, researcher has to carefully not to project a single dimension on to the experience. Moreover, most of what we internalize is out-of-awareness (Bourdieu). So when we internalize racist thinking, does that make a person experiencing racism? Does such a division not required some separation between intentional, declared (racism) and unintentional, not declared racist thinking? Even if the consequences for victims may be the same, understanding what is internalized is not helpful without nuance and care for nuances. Likewise, it is an abrupt move to connect to shifts of style to white supremism. If this argument is maintained, the argumentative leap has to be better argued. I would suggest to stay focus on the shifts of identity, and then avoid shifting to the big words and phenomenon white supremism and even colonialism, and coloniality. Research that skips historical and geographic context is easy to dismiss, so if this is done, it must be substantiated by references and arguments. Even if coloniality can be traced hundreds of years back in time, it is not an automatic process. Psychologists would argued for this, but any discipline that includes a minimum of power relatins would insist that “race” (and other forms of subordination) has to be renewed and recontextualized in order to continue to work.

 

US-THEM in relation to belonging (mentioned in the text as important). Research in other Nordic countries have shown that the nationalist US-THEM division is a white majority one, which “defines” who belongs geographically to the territory (nationalism, sovereignty) and minorities are reduced to being foreigners, or even guests with annoying differences. Ethnic minority antiracist activist has internalized (unconsciousness) an US-them division, US (people of color) who experiences racism and knows racism, while others do not.

The theme of changing hairstyles, clothes, plastic surgery, names, ways of speaking and so on is well covered globally. What is missing is the analysis of how and when it differs from adaptations for the market, whether jobs, fashion, romance or other. In the beginning, author moves from removing hair to internalized racism, which is abrupt and opens for easy critique. Author needs to be careful. It is not a good idea to invite criticism, which is brutal in this field.

How do the author interpret the opposite trend? “African” hair is found in Norway among people with no kin ties to Africa, and others have at some point in their lives used chemical hair relaxers to straigten hair and to bleach it in order to become true blonds.

 

Smaller issues:

Should "twenties" be considered part of the teenage years?

It should be noted that the term “trauma” is often overused and has been popularized to apply to almost anything.

The categorization of “Afro-hair” or “African hair” employs monolithic definitions, which African scholars like Achille Mbembe caution against.

On the use of “whitening cream” in various parts of the world, particularly in Sudan and other Central African countries, the author notes:

“The brand has been heavily criticized by social activists for promoting racist ideals.” However, who are these social activists? Are they predominantly white northerners? Scholars of the Global North must be cautious of moral othering, as white (feminist) saviorism faces fierce criticism in these regions. This is not a defense of such practices but rather a call for more nuanced and careful analysis.

“White dolls over Black ones, revealing the early internalization of racial inferiority.” Once again, it is critical to avoid oversimplified universal generalizations and to consider nuances. Yes, this phenomenon indicates something—but what exactly? Is it the influence of a successful advertising industry? Furthermore, the doll test has been utilized for educational purposes, serving as a starting point to highlight and work toward changing perceptions. Likewise, there is significant research showcasing examples of the opposite outcome. What does that reveal, then? The overarching point is that context should never be ignored.

 

 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2

Comment 1: Throughout the article, a major concern is the lack of depth in the analysis, the critical treatment of concepts, and the neglect of the socio-historical processes that shape these concepts and arguments. Freire, Fanon, and Goff in Epstein (neither of whom appear in the references) provide important insights, but they must be adapted to the specific geographic and historical context discussed. 

 

Response 1: Specifically, we have expanded our discussion of postcolonial theories of identity to situate key thinkers, Frantz Fanon (1986), Albert Memmi (1965), and Paulo Freire (2018), within their original colonial contexts, as requested. This includes highlighting the historical settings from which their theories emerged: Fanon’s work in French-occupied Algeria, Memmi’s in Tunisia, and Freire’s in Brazil. These foundations are now clearly articulated in the revised theoretical section (originally on page 3, sentence 90), where we also explain how their insights remain relevant for understanding racial hierarchies in contemporary postcolonial Europe and the Nordic region. Additionally, to contextualize our analysis geographically and historically, we have incorporated references to Norway’s colonial entanglements, including its role in the transatlantic slave trade (Weiss, 2023) and assimilation policies toward the Indigenous Sámi people (Minde, 2005). This provides a clearer link between the theoretical framework and the specific setting of the study.

 

In the intro and in the the chapter “Reclaiming Identity Through Decolonization” (currently on page 9), we have also introduced Stuart Hall’s (1997) concept of race as a “floating signifier” to emphasize the culturally and historically contingent nature of racial meaning-making, highlighting the importance of context.

 

As a critique of the main concepts used in this article, we have expanded several places in the article on the need for an intersectional and specifically gendered perspective.

 

Finally, we have reviewed the reference list and can confirm that Freire (2018), Fanon (1986), and Epstein (1998) are all cited and included. We appreciate your attention to detail.

 

 

Comment 2: Even though “race” (defined here as skin color) is a common concept, it is fluid, constantly reinventing itself, and varies significantly across different contexts.

It is often said among racism scholars that racism is more than anything a vehicle for other forms of dehumanization. Consequently, the article should include discussions on other forms of dehumanization, US-THEM relations (with US always being superior), harassment, marginalization, exclusions, and similar phenomena. Andersson’s definition of racism is overly psychological and reductive – as seen also in much political science – confining it to attitudes. Relations of power must be incorporated into the definition.

 

The US-THEM distinction in relation to belonging is mentioned in the text as important. Research from other Nordic countries has shown that the nationalist US-THEM division is largely a white-majority construct, defining who belongs geographically to the territory (via nationalism and sovereignty) and with minorities being reduced to the status of foreigners or even guests with annoying differences. Ethnic minority anti-racist activists have also unconsciously internalized a US-THEM division, wherein US (people of color) are those who experience and understand racism, while others do not.

 

Response 2: Thank you very much for this important comment. We fully agree with the need to broaden the conceptualization of racism beyond psychological attitudes and to incorporate relational and structural dimensions, including dehumanization and power relations.

 

In response, we have revised the theoretical framework in the chapter “Reclaiming Identity Through Decolonization” (currently on page 9) to reflect a more nuanced and critical engagement with the concept of race and racism. Specifically, we have built on Stuart Hall’s (1997) notion of race as a “floating signifier,” which emphasizes the historically and culturally contingent nature of racial meanings. This allows us to approach race as a socially constructed and shifting category, rather than a fixed biological fact. Furthermore, we now explicitly state that while Andersson’s framework contributes valuable insight into the internal and psychological aspects of racial identity development, it is limited when not placed in a broader sociopolitical context. To address this, we have expanded our understanding of racism to include systemic and structural components, particularly the reproduction of “us-versus-them” hierarchies where whiteness is constructed as superior.

 

We appreciate this thoughtful critique, which has helped us significantly strengthen the conceptual clarity and analytical depth of the manuscript.

 

 

Comment 3: Døving’s edited volume on racism is relevant here. For instance, the issue of “Kan man se norsk ut” (Erdal’s chapter) could be incorporated. Furthermore, the lens through which racism is seen, such as the sight of skin color or headscarves, is becoming outdated. In this perspective, the focus is on the “victims” rather than the “perpetrators.” This approach is akin to examining a child’s red spots without diagnosing the measles or other illnesses of which the red spots are merely a symptom. This is not to say that racism doesn’t have an impact, which the author has convincingly demonstrated.

 

Response 3:  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have references Erdals chapter in the last paragraph in the subchapter Reclaiming identity through decolonization Also, as mentioned above, we have expanded our perspectives regarding racism to account for the structural aspects.

 

Comment 4: With a more precise elaboration of what constitutes racism in the article, one must ask the difficult question: is it racism that is internalized, or is it all the negative, racist bias? Reads like racist thinking, but that is not the same thing as exerting racist exclusion and attacks, right? It is evident from the interviews that participants interpret their prior experiences through ideas they learned later in life. This presents a methodological challenge. When multiple dimensions (nationalism, class, gender, religion, age) are at play simultaneously, the researcher must be careful not to project a single dimension onto the experience. Moreover, most of what we internalize operates at the level of unconscious awareness (Bourdieu).

 

Response 4:

We share the view that the women interpret their stories from where they are at in their life, and we have highlighted that more in the methods chapter now. Also, throughout the text we have been careful to situate the narratives more as stories told from the perspective of grown-up women. Regarding the unconscious, we have, as detailed above, developed an interpretation related to the super-ego. Also the interpretations of the stories have been opened up to include more of the factors mentioned in your comment throughout the article.

 

 

Comments 5: Therefore, when we internalize racist thinking, does that make a person experiencing racism? Does such an interpretation not require a distinction between intentional, declared acts of racism and unintentional, undeclared racist thinking? Even though the consequences for victims may be the same, understanding what is internalized requires nuance and care. This is not to say that racism cannot be exerted unintentionally. Similarly, the connection of shifts in style with white supremacism is abrupt and requires better argumentation if it is to be maintained. I suggest focusing on shifts in identity and avoiding an overreliance on terms like white supremacism, colonialism, and coloniality. Research that overlooks historical and geographic context is easily dismissed, so if these claims are made, they must be substantiated with references and well-developed arguments. Even if coloniality can be traced back hundreds of years, it is not an automatic process. Disciplines that consider power relations insist that “race” (and other forms of subordination) must be renewed and recontextualized to remain operative.  

 

 

Response 5: Thank you for this thoughtful and important observation. We have addressed this issue by clarifying our understanding of what constitutes racism in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we have included a passage that distinguishes between racism as an external act, whether intentional or not, and the internalization of racist ideologies, which often occurs unconsciously through sustained exposure to dominant norms and representations. The following clarification has been added to the Discussion chapter p. 11. This revision was made to acknowledge the methodological complexity of interpreting retrospective narratives shaped by later conceptual understandings, as you rightly pointed out.  

 

 

Comment 6: The theme of changing hairstyles, clothes, plastic surgery, names, and ways of speaking is well-covered globally. However, what is missing is an analysis of how and when these adaptations differ from changes made for market-oriented reasons, whether for employment, fashion, romance, or other purposes even as they often embeds racist categories and racist thinking. At the beginning of the article, the author moves abruptly from the topic of removing hair to internalized racism, inviting easy critique. The author needs to tread carefully here, as this field is subject to particularly fierce criticism and attacks.

 

Response 6: Thank you for this thoughtful and nuanced comment. We have addressed this concern by expanding our discussion on the complexity behind changes in hairstyles, names, and appearance. Specifically, we now acknowledge that such adaptations are not solely the result of internalized racism but often reflect a mix of motivations, including desires for social belonging, access to professional opportunities, fashion, and self-expression.

 

We have added the following passage to the Discussion chapter (p. 11) to address this point:

 

“A recurring theme in the participants’ stories was the pressure to conform to Eurocentric beauty ideals, particularly during adolescence. They recounted decisions to modify their hair and appearance, driven by a desire to fit in. Yet these choices were later revisited and reinterpreted. What once felt like simple adaptation was later understood as shaped by internalized racism and the need for belonging. It is important, however, to recognize that changes in hairstyles, clothing, names, and other identity expressions are not solely the result of internalized racism. These adaptations often reflect a complex mix of motivations, including social belonging, professional opportunities, and fashion trends. For many, modifying appearance or behavior can be a strategic or empowering response to navigate dominant norms and societal expectations.”

 

This addition reflects a more careful and contextualized analysis, acknowledging the intersection between structural constraints and individual agency. We appreciate the reminder to tread carefully and hope this revision addresses your concern about the nuance and sensitivity required in this field of inquiry.

 

Comment 7: How does the author interpret the opposite trend? For instance, “African” hairstyles are now seen in Norway among individuals with no kin ties to Africa, while others have, at some point in their lives, used chemical hair relaxers to straighten their hair or bleached it in pursuit of becoming true blondes.

 

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the interpretation of opposite trends in hairstyle and identity expressions. We have addressed this in the revised manuscript by acknowledging that while many participants described pressure to conform to dominant beauty ideals, there is also a noticeable trend of traditionally “African” hairstyles being adopted by individuals without kin ties to Africa, particularly within global popular culture.

 

We further elaborate on the racialized dynamics involved, referencing Turner and Young (2022) to highlight how these aesthetic practices are differently valued and policed depending on the racial identity of the person embodying them. This discussion is included in the Discussion chapter on page 11, where we contextualize these trends within larger power structures and the specific social environments of the participants.

 

We trust this revision adds nuance and depth to our analysis, and we appreciate your guidance in strengthening this aspect of the paper.

 

 

Comment 8: Should "twenties" be considered part of the teenage years?

 

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. To enhance clarity and formality, we have replaced the word “teenage” with “adolescence” in sentences 201 (p.5)  and 362 (p.8). This change better reflects the intended age range and maintains an appropriate academic tone.

 

Comments 9: It should be noted that the term “trauma” is often overused and has been popularized to apply to almost anything.

 

Response 9: Thank you for your observation regarding the use of the term “trauma.” We acknowledge that the term is often overused and broadly applied. In response, we have replaced the original mention of “trauma” in sentence 243 with a more precise description of Zahra’s (27) experiences, focusing on how her body was racialized and sexualized from childhood.

 

However, we have chosen to retain the use of “trauma” in sentence 208 (p.5), as this term was specifically used by the participant herself and reflects her personal framing of the experience. We believe this approach respects both academic precision and the participant’s own voice.

 

Comment 10: The categorization of “Afro-hair” or “African hair” employs monolithic definitions, which African scholars like Achille Mbembe caution against.

 

Response 10: Thank you for your comment regarding the categorization of “Afro-hair” or “African hair.” In response, we have chosen not to use the term “African hair” directly, instead, we refer simply to “hair” and then explain that the term “African hair” is often used in literature and discussions. This approach helps avoid reinforcing monolithic definitions. We also discuss Hetlelid’s (2022) study on hair practices among Black women in Norway, noting that all participants had used chemical relaxers. Furthermore, we incorporate Mbembe’s (2017) caution against fixed and singular categorizations like ‘Black,’ emphasizing that such labels often reflect imposed identities rooted in objectification and historical power structures rather than authentic self-definition. This discussion appears under the chapter “Killing their hair, and losing their identity” on page 8.

 

Comment 11: On the use of “whitening cream” in various parts of the world, particularly in Sudan and other Central African countries, the author notes: “The brand has been heavily criticized by social activists for promoting racist ideals.” However, who are these social activists? Are they predominantly white northerners? Scholars of the Global North must be cautious of moral othering, as white (feminist) saviorism faces fierce criticism in these regions. This is not a defense of such practices but rather a call for more nuanced and careful analysis.

 

Response 11: Thank you for your important observation. In response, we revised the paragraph to avoid generalizations and to clarify the origins of critique against skin-lightening products. Instead of simply stating that “the brand has been heavily criticized by social activists,” we now emphasize that the critiques stem from diverse voices, including local activists within the affected communities. This addition acknowledges the complexity of the debate and avoids framing the issue through a Global North-centric lens or falling into the trap of moral othering. These revisions appear in the chapter Killing Their Hair, and Losing Their Identity, on page 8, around sentence 376.

 

Comment 12: “White dolls over Black ones, revealing the early internalization of racial inferiority.” Once again, it is critical to avoid oversimplified universal generalizations and to consider nuances. Yes, this phenomenon indicates something—but what exactly? Is it the influence of a successful advertising industry? Furthermore, the doll test has been utilized for educational purposes, serving as a starting point to highlight and work toward changing perceptions. Likewise, there is significant research showcasing examples of the opposite outcome. What does that reveal, then? The overarching point is that context should never be ignored.

 

Response 12: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the interpretation of the “Doll Test.” In response, we revised the text to provide a more nuanced discussion. While we do reference the findings of Clark (1947) and Davis (2005), we note that advertising, cultural environments, and educational initiatives play significant roles in shaping children’s perceptions, and we highlight that the test has also been used as a pedagogical tool to raise awareness and challenge internalized bias.

 

These additions are intended to avoid oversimplification and emphasize the importance of contextual interpretation, as suggested. The revision was placed in the chapter Previous Research, originally around sentence 64 on page 2. However, due to edits and restructuring, the exact sentence number may have changed.