Understanding the Colonial Underpinnings of Identity Capitalism: Implications for Diversity-Related Research

• In Event: AERA Roundtable Session 5
  In Roundtable Session: The Theoretical Power of Identity Capitalism to Exam Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Higher Education

Abstract

Over the last few months, our research team has been reviewing the literature concerning the experiences and contributions of Women of Color academics. We have been fascinated to find that, all around the world, there are efforts to diversify the academy along gender and racial lines (Ahmed, 2012; Badat, 2009; Beagan, 2019; Best et al., 2013; Broadbent et al., 2017; Majee & Ress, 2018; Oishi, 2017). Although the nature of these efforts varies according to local, regional, and national contexts, after years of work, women, particularly Black, Indigenous, and other women racialized as non-white continue to be underrepresented amongst the professoriate, overrepresented in vulnerable academic appointment types, and situated in hostile work contexts (Smith, 2020; Winchester & Browning, 2015).
In considering the persistent failure, or limited success of most diversity efforts, we have found Leong’s identity capitalist framework to be a powerful analytic tool. In short, Leong argues that, like most institutions, colleges and universities view and treat members of historically minoritized and marginalized communities as capital—commodities to be accumulated in hopes of status preservation and future market returns. Yet, these same institutions refuse structural and cultural change that would make the academy a more welcoming place for historically excluded communities. However, because the nature of our work is global, we are grappling with the limits of understanding diversity work through a lens that lacks acknowledgment of the always present presence of colonialism (Majee & Ress, 2018). Thus, we are striving to integrate Quijano’s (2002) and Lugones’s (2008) decolonial work into Leong’s framework to show that the categories used to mark people with identities are an outgrowth of colonialism. In making this adjustment, we now have to think through the commodification of identity, which is at the core of identity capitalism, and the ways in which labor is marked by colonial categories.
Our goal is to extend the utility of Leong’s work by connecting her framework to a decolonial analysis, making it a helpful perspective for considering why diversity efforts—all around the world—fall short of transformative change. By analyzing the literature through the lens of the new framework, we are able to understand how women, particularly Women of Color academics’ identities are commodified and capitalized, and how historically excluded people continue to be marginalized in the academy around the world.
That said, we suggest that if colleges and universities are truly committed to transformative change, they will need to acknowledge the limits of thinking about diversity through a lens that lacks acknowledgment of colonialism’s legacy and consider how labor, and the evaluation of labor within the academy, is marked by white masculine supremacy, rather than integrating or assimilating diverse knowledge and beings into the current sexist and racist academic labor system. Our comments and contributions may be of greatest interest to those with theoretical and methodological interests in a more global understanding of diversity work.

Authors

• Leslie D. Gonzales, Michigan State University

• Sanfeng Miao, Michigan State University

• Regina Hidalgo Gong, Michigan State University