Who is the gatekeeper for any of our chosen and/or acquired identities?
Who is the gatekeeper for any of our chosen and/or acquired identities?
Here are two ideas from my book, Reconstructing Inclusion: Making DEI Accessible, Actionable, and Sustainable and other texts I leaned on in writing it. In addition, I’ve included one quote, a book recommendation, and a video or article that has inspired or influenced me and hopefully will resonate with you, too. (That’s ✌🏿+ 💡📚➕).
Page 39-40
"No matter what one thinks of Rachel Dolezal, there is no denying that her story opened up a conversation rife with sentiment (at least in the US) that cut across cultural lines and revealed racially uniform, aligned, or homogeneous opinions. You could say that the topic of Rachel Dolezal (who gained acclaim as for being racially classified as white but who identifies culturally in a manner that caused most of her associates to assume she was Black) was an inclusive opening. One writer said, “She is in some ways a Rorschach test. She is that person that depending on who you are, and where you sit, and your lens, you will react to her differently.”
Personally, I was a bit perplexed by the argument. Note: I am Black and proud to be part of the culture. I didn’t need to say that. But given that it’s possible some people reading this book or this passage will potentially question my motivation, I wanted to make it clear. I was left puzzled because I wasn’t sure what Rachel Dolezal did “wrong” that made her the target of Black people. I was more certain about why she garnered sympathy from white women, some of whom envy stereotypical and archetypical characteristics that are often associated with Black women.
Related post: DEI practices are still stuck on race and gender
That was easy. In fact, if we look at the sociocultural trends in what is considered beautiful, being like a “strong, smart black woman” (SSBW) is what I would say many women might desire to emulate, in theory. Considering the circumstances, the cliché of the SSBW is a desired way of being in all of its hyperbolic reality.
Rachel Dolezal made several choices. The choices did not seem to be altogether deliberate. Her context, affinities, and preferences brought her to them. Dolezal was born as a racially classified white woman from Montana. During her life, particularly during her teens and twenties, she had developed such a connection with African American/Black culture and communities that she began to (at least implicitly) identify as a Black woman to the communities in which she lived and worked."
Related video: Racism and Race
Page 40-41, 43
"Let’s say we described a random woman who lived in Jackson, Mississippi, for several years, went to Howard University (a historically Black university), has three Black sons (one of them adopted), was former president of a local Washington State chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and taught African and African American history at two different colleges. She wears box braids and other Afrocentric hairstyles. How would you picture her? What kinds of conversations would you have with her? How would you relate to her if you didn’t know she was “the white woman that passed for Black”?
For me, it would be an absolute shock to hear about the above person and then see her classified as a white woman. She sounds more Afrocentric than me. The argument lies in the fact that Rachel Dolezal did feel confident in her identity. It’s likely part of the problem that many people, including what Dolezal might describe as “other Black women,” have with what she did."
Cultural (mis)appropriation (another word for the diversity glossary of terms) was the description many used. Others took her to be disingenuous, not acknowledging that her white-skinned privilege made her feel empowered to conveniently “pretend to be Black.”
Related post: Organizations have only small windows to benefit from monoculture
Reconstructing Inclusion S1E6: What is Race Abolition?: Illuminating Racialization’s Complexity
What is palpable when reading tweets and articles from Black women is confounding emotions and the resonance of the pain body in observing what may be viewed as an intruder without legitimacy or authenticity looking to possess “the only thing that we cannot have taken away from us, even if we desired to have done so.”
Yet, this woman can take on being Black just as white actors and actresses have done in television and film for decades, portraying Native Americans, Blacks, Asians, you name it. Or those who studied Black music and then made (and continue to make via royalties and touring) large sums of money using styles and rhythms that they acquired listening to these Black artists who were making a relative pittance. It is understandable. At the same time, I don’t know if what Dolezal did was wrong.
Two questions that Rachel Dolezal presents in the Netflix documentary The Rachel Divide are a recurring theme in the stories of Woods and Johnson as well. One can imagine they are of critical interest for all who believe that “bringing one’s authentic self to work” is important. Dolezal posits, “Who’s the gatekeeper for Blackness? . . . Do we actually have the right to live how we feel?” I would add, who is the gatekeeper for any of our chosen and/or acquired identities?"
Related post: When inclusion wins, everyone wins
💡A Quote
“Identities can be held together by narratives, in short, without essences: you don’t get to be called “English” because there’s an essence this label follows; you’re English because our rules determine that you are entitled to the label—that you are connected in the right way with a place called England.”
― Kwame Anthony Appiah, The Lies that Bind: Rethinking Identity
📚A Book
Photo Credit: Amazon.com
The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity
By Kwame Anthony Appiah, Professor of Finance, The London Business School
➕A Video
Is it time to forge a new narrative about race? | The Equiano Project
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
In this episode of the ‘Reconstructing Inclusion’ podcast, let’s discuss the current state and “the attacks” on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and the need to redefine its contemporary frame. I talk about the concept of iatrogenic effects, drawing from the work of Ivan Illich, and its relevance in the DEI space. Why are self-reflection, intentional broadening, greater contact, and the promotion of agency in mitigating iatrogenic effects important in advancing the potential of DEI work?