Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper introduces the concept of white childhoods as a critical framework to examine how whiteness, coloniality, and racial capitalism shape early childhood education and care systems in Europe. Dominant norms of childhood, rooted in white, middle-class, heteronormative, and non-disabled ideals, structure how children are seen as emotionally legible, developmentally \"normal,\" and worthy of institutional care. Racialized and migrant children are often positioned as deficient, with their languages, cultural practices, and family structures rendered unintelligible or threatening. Drawing on in-depth interviews with Syrian mothers and ethnographic observations across Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, the paper maps how white childhoods are enforced through language policy, affective expectations, and maternal surveillance. Beyond critique, the paper uses short speculative vignettes to explore abolitionist futures in which care is collective, multilingualism is embraced, and belonging is not conditional. These speculative fragments are grounded in the lived experiences and quiet refusals voiced by migrant mothers, treating imagination as both method and political strategy. Rather than seeking inclusion or reform, the paper calls for dismantling the racialized logics of early childhood education and care and for building educational spaces grounded in relationality, cultural sovereignty, and joy. Abolition here is framed not as utopian idealism but as a pedagogical and methodological commitment to living otherwise.

Theory and research in cultural psychology highlight the need to examine racism not only “in the head” but also “in the world.” Racism is often defined as individual prejudice, but racism is also systemic, existing in the advantages and disadvantages imprinted in cultural artifacts, ideological discourse, and institutional realities that work together with individual biases. In this review, we highlight examples of historically derived ideas and cultural patterns that maintain present-day racial inequalities. We discuss three key insights on the psychology of racism derived from utilizing a cultural-psychology framework. First, one can find racism embedded in our everyday worlds. Second, through our preferences and selections, we maintain racialized contexts in everyday action. Third, we inhabit cultural worlds that, in turn, promote racialized ways of seeing, being in, and acting in the world. This perspective directs attempts at intervention away from individual tendencies and instead focuses on changing the structures of mind in context that reflect and reproduce racial domination.

Organizational theory scholars typically see organizations as race-neutral bureaucratic structures, while race and ethnicity scholars have largely neglected the role of organizations in the social construction of race. The theory developed in this article bridges these subfields, arguing that organizations are racial structures—cognitive schemas connecting organizational rules to social and material resources. I begin with the proposition that race is constitutive of organizational foundations, hierarchies, and processes. Next, I develop four tenets: (1) racialized organizations enhance or diminish the agency of racial groups; (2) racialized organizations legitimate the unequal distribution of resources; (3) Whiteness is a credential; and (4) the decoupling of formal rules from organizational practice is often racialized. I argue that racialization theory must account for how both state policy and individual attitudes are filtered through—and changed by—organizations. Seeing race as constitutive of organizations helps us better understand the formation and everyday functioning of organizations. Incorporating organizations into a structural theory of racial inequality can help us better understand stability, change, and the institutionalization of racial inequality. I conclude with an overview of internal and external sources of organizational change and a discussion of how the theory of racialized organizations may set the agenda for future research.

Background Racism constitutes a barrier towards achieving equitable healthcare as documented in research showing unequal processes of delivering, accessing, and receiving healthcare across countries and healthcare indicators. This review summarizes studies examining how racism is discussed and produced in the process of delivering, accessing and receiving healthcare across various national contexts. Method The PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews were followed and databases were searched for peer reviewed empirical articles in English across national contexts. No starting date limitation was applied for this review. The end date was December 1, 2020. The review scoped 213 articles. The results were summarized, coded and thematically categorized in regards to the aim. Results The review yielded the following categories: healthcare users’ experiences of racism in healthcare; healthcare staff’s experiences of racism; healthcare staff’s racial attitudes and beliefs; effects of racism in healthcare on various treatment choices; healthcare staff’s reflections on racism in healthcare and; antiracist training in healthcare. Racialized minorities experience inadequate healthcare and being dismissed in healthcare interactions. Experiences of racism are associated with lack of trust and delay in seeking healthcare. Racialized minority healthcare staff experience racism in their workplace from healthcare users and colleagues and lack of organizational support in managing racism. Research on healthcare staff’s racial attitudes and beliefs demonstrate a range of negative stereotypes regarding racialized minority healthcare users who are viewed as difficult. Research on implicit racial bias illustrates that healthcare staff exhibit racial bias in favor of majority group. Healthcare staff’s racial bias may influence medical decisions negatively. Studies examining healthcare staff’s reflections on racism and antiracist training show that healthcare staff tend to construct healthcare as impartial and that healthcare staff do not readily discuss racism in their workplace. Conclusions The USA dominates the research. It is imperative that research covers other geo-political contexts. Research on racism in healthcare is mainly descriptive, atheoretical, uses racial categories uncritically and tends to ignore racialization processes making it difficult to conceptualize racism. Sociological research on racism could inform research on racism as it theoretically explains racism’s structural embeddedness, which could aid in tackling racism to provide good quality care.

Immigrant health research has often noted an “immigrant health paradox”, the observation that immigrants are “healthier” compared to their native-born peers of similar demographic and socioeconomic profile. This paradox disappears as immigrants stay longer in the host country. Multiple arguments, including migrant selectivity and cultural and behavioral factors have been proposed as reasons for the apparent paradox. Recently, the field has focused on immigrant legal status, especially its racialization. We review the literature on the immigrant health paradox, legal status, and racialized legal status to examine how this debate has taken a more structural approach. We find that immigrant health research has taken a needed intersectional approach, a productive development that examines how different markers of disadvantage work concurrently to shape immigrants’ health. This approach, which factors in immigration enforcement practices, aligns with explanations for poor health outcomes among other racialized groups, and promises a fruitful avenue for future research.

Objective/context: This study analyzes how Chile has handled the granting of asylum from 2010 to the present, effectively transforming it into an exception. This situation has intensified amid increasing regional forced mobility due to various barriers to accessing the asylum application process and requirements imposed by regulatory changes aligned with migration governance policies. By employing the notion of a humanitarian frontier, the study examines processes of selectivity and differentiation marked by affiliation with certain nationalities. Methodology: A mixed qualitative analysis was conducted, including statistical review, document analysis, and examination of management practices related to forced displacement. The study explores two cases that illustrate how the state has restricted the recognition of asylum. Conclusions: The findings reveal that Chile employs selective state management differentiated by nationality, prioritizing the protection of certain migrant groups that align with the classical definition of a refugee. This approach is linked to the non-recognition of other diasporas experiencing forced mobility. Originality: This paper examines the state of asylum in Chile by connecting it to the concept of a humanitarian frontier, aiming to reveal how state protection intertwines with the control of mobility. Objetivo/contexto: se analiza el tratamiento que Chile ha dado al otorgamiento del refugio desde 2010 a la actualidad, al transformarlo en una excepcionalidad. Dicho panorama se agudiza en el contexto de incremento de la movilidad forzada regional, por las diversas barreras para acceder al procedimiento de solicitud de refugio y los requerimientos impuestos por las modificaciones normativas a tono con las políticas de gobernanza migratoria. Al sustentarse en la noción de frontera humanitaria, se analizan los procesos de selectividad y diferenciación, marcados por la pertenencia a ciertas nacionalidades. Metodología: se realizó un análisis cualitativo mixto, de revisión estadística, documental y de las prácticas de gestión relativas a desplazamientos forzados, para explorar dos casos que exponen cómo el Estado ha restringido el reconocimiento de refugio. Conclusiones: en Chile se devela una gestión estatal selectiva, diferenciada según nacionalidades, que prioriza el resguardo de determinados colectivos migrantes que coinciden con la definición clásica de refugiado, lo que se articula con el no reconocimiento de otras diásporas en movilidad forzada. Originalidad: se examina el estado del refugio en Chile, vinculándolo al concepto de frontera humanitaria, para revelar cómo la protección estatal se imbrica con el control de la movilidad. Objetivo/contexto: este estudo analisa como o Chile tem tratado a concessão de asilo desde 2010 até o presente, transformando-a efetivamente em uma exceção. Essa situação se intensificou em meio ao aumento da mobilidade forçada na região, devido a várias barreiras no acesso ao processo de solicitação de asilo e aos requisitos impostos por mudanças regulatórias alinhadas com políticas de governança migratória. Utilizando a noção de fronteira humanitária, o estudo examina processos de seletividade e diferenciação marcados pela afiliação a determinadas nacionalidades. Metodologia: foi realizada uma análise qualitativa mista, incluindo revisão estatística, análise documental e exame de práticas de gestão relacionadas a deslocamentos forçados. O estudo explora dois casos que ilustram como o Estado restringiu o reconhecimento do asilo. Conclusões: os achados revelam que o Chile emprega uma gestão estatal seletiva, diferenciada por nacionalidades, priorizando a proteção de certos grupos migrantes que se alinham com a definição clássica de refugiado. Essa abordagem está ligada ao não reconhecimento de outras diásporas que experimentam mobilidade forçada. Originalidade: este artigo examina o estado do asilo no Chile ao conectá-lo ao conceito de fronteira humanitária, com o objetivo de revelar como a proteção estatal se entrelaça com o controle da mobilidade.

This essay examines the intertwined nature of seemingly neutral immigration laws that illegalize certain immigrant groups and the socially constructed attitudes and stereotypes that associate the same legally targeted groups with “illegality,” to produce the racialization of illegality. These complementary factors are further sustained by other social forces, including media discourses that reify those associations. The racialization of illegality is a fundamentally situational, relational, dynamic, and historically and context-specific process. Today, Latino groups are the preeminent target group of both the social and the legal production of illegality. Thus, this essay examines Latinos’ racialized illegality across geographical contexts, within their group, and in relation to other contemporary immigrants. Although expressions of racialized illegality and specific targeted groups will vary across time and space, the contours of the phenomenon will be present across contexts and times (and produce specific outcomes) because they are shaped by existing racial hierarchies.

Bridging research in social psychology with scholarship on racialized organizations, this article shows how individual bias and organizational demographic composition can operate together to shape the degree of discrimination in schools. To understand Black and Latino boys’ higher rates of discipline that persist net of differences in behavior, I combine an original video experiment involving 1,339 teachers in 295 U.S. schools with organizational data on school racial/ethnic and socioeconomic composition. In the experiment, teachers view and respond to a randomly assigned video of a White, Black, or Latino boy committing identical, routine classroom misbehavior. I find that, compared to White boys, Black and Latino boys face a double jeopardy. They experience both (1) individual-level teacher bias, where they are perceived as being more “blameworthy” and referred more readily for identical misbehavior, and (2) racialized organizational climates of heightened blaming, where students of all races/ethnicities are perceived as being more “blameworthy” for identical misbehavior in schools with large minority populations versus in predominantly White schools. This study develops a more comprehensive understanding of the production of racial/ethnic inequality in school discipline by empirically identifying a dual process that involves both individual teacher bias and heightened blaming that is related to minority organizational composition.