Dualities of Identity Capitalism in the Institution: A Conceptual Discussion of Systems and Subversion

• 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

“...to be in but not of - this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university” (Harney & Moten, 2013)
How can the conceptualization of identity capitalism (Leong, 2021) be in conversation with the broad dynamics of racial capitalism (Robinson, 1983)? Can identity capitalism be a mechanism to explain the process by which racial capitalism is manifested within systems of higher education? Furthermore, how does a critical quantification (Stage, 2007) approach engage the conceptualization of identity capitalism to make sense of these manifestations?
Leong (2021) conceptualizes identity capitalism as an extraction of benefits by in-groups in the selective inclusion of out-groups, commodifying capital from the explicit presence of racialized bodies. In discussing the work of Robinson (1983), Kelley (2017) notes that racial capitalism is “a colonial project involving exploitation, monopolization, expropriation, and racial hierarchy.” If we assume that institutions of higher education exist within Western structures of capital, we can expect the institutions to operate within the frame of racial capitalism and, thus, view racialized bodies as sources of capital of which to exploit. Identity capitalism, the process of the extraction of benefit from racialized bodies, thus, can be explained through the lens of racial capitalism.
As one example, institutions use quantification to promote DEI efforts without engaging in structural change, participating in forms of extraction. In what other ways have diversity, equity, and inclusion been collapsed into quantifiable metrics? How and in what ways can identity capitalism be used as an explanatory tool to critically understand the impacts of DEI efforts put forth by institutions in the quantification of diversity, equity, and inclusion?
I also take up the idea of identity entrepreneurs (Leong, 2021) as a possible form of institutional subversion or fugitivity. In the spirit of the Black Radical Tradition (Robinson, 1983), fugitives in the academy, according to Harney and Moten (2013), “abuse its hospitality, spites its mission” and, reallocate and/or reappropriate resources of the institution. La Paperson (2017) argues that resource reallocation and reappropriation is a decolonial project of scyborgs, persons, as both individuals and collectives, that are products of the colonial spaces of higher education but, as agents within the academy, engage as fugitives. Scyborgs understand the nuances of the academy, how it works, operates, and organizes. As such, scyborgs, those that choose to be, harness these knowledges for decolonial means, resource reallocation and reappropriation.
Leong (2021) argues that members of outgroups (individuals with non-dominant social identities) can participate in identity capitalism as identity entrepreneurs. Identity entrepreneurs adjust or conform to the expectations of the ingroup to obtain status and capital for their benefit. Could individuals of outgroups that participate in the reallocation of institutional resources, as described by Harney & Moten (2013) and La Paperson (2017), be considered participants in identity capitalism as identity entrepreneurs? How does extending Leong’s (2021) conceptualization of the identity entrepreneur to include those that participate in institutional subversion provide radical possibilities of its application to theorizing and conceptualizing transformative DEI work in higher education?

Author

• Derek A. Houston, Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville