Navigating Racialised Appellations (Part 3): ‘Woman of Colour (WOC)’, or Not

Despite the time lag in my blog writing due to competing responsibilities, as promised, this blog discusses the second common Racialised Appellation (RA), ‘Woman of Colour’ (WoC). WoC derives from the more encompassing ‘People (or Persons) of Colour’ (POC) RA. Curiously, I have not heard of menfolk being described as ‘Men of Colour’. Not sure of the rationale or rationality behind the absence of MOC in extant discourses. Are you?

Based on my experience, there seems to be uncertainty amongst folks as to which description, that is, ‘Black’ or ‘a Person of Colour’ is the lesser demeaning racialised appellation.

I will use my experience at a conference in the USA as an example. I attended an event advertised as a networking opportunity for PoC at this conference. I was hoping to get an opportunity to meet other researchers with an interest in topics related to international education. But the only memory of the evening that is indelibly etched in my mind was the moment one of the speakers described himself as a Black person. There was an instant chorus of ‘PoC’ from around the room. This indicated that was the acceptable term. The speaker agreed and promptly used the term PoC, and that seemed to please the majority of the attendees. I cannot and do not claim to have a deep understanding of the undertones of the discourses around navigating Blackness in the US. But that was a strange experience for me.

Also in the UK where I work, I have been invited to meetings held by or for WoC. At one meeting, I expressed my reservations regarding the WoC appellation. The meeting host acknowledged that the label is problematic. But the question remains – what do we replace it with? On one occasion, a researcher I’d met at a conference invited me to join her to set up a ‘WoC’ network. Although I agreed with the principle of setting up a network that focuses on minoritized ethnic groups in educational research, I explained to her that I think it would be helpful to think of a different way of branding the proposed network. In both cases, I felt there was a push back, not in words, but in silence and non-engagement with exploring other possibilities, so to speak. I understand.

I do understand the need to differentiate a group for identifiability. But that does not mean that the identifier ‘label’ is unproblematic. This makes it necessary to critically interrogate the label.

My discomfort with the WoC RA is that it lumps up all non-White people into one group. This also seems to me as a rather denigrating label as the ‘coloured’ ones. In the first place, This suggests that all so-called PoC are the same, and their experiences are similar. That is incorrect. This homogenisation of diversity is a lazy fallacious grouping, that in reality is a meaningless label.

Why do I think the label is meaningless? I mean, just think about it, when some people are labelled as ‘People of Colour’, then who are the ‘Colourless People’? To my mind, the labelling of people either as coloured or by implication some are colourless is meaningless. For policy and in practice, it may be easier to put people in categories. But the othering of people by racialised appellations does not itself redress the ills of racism.

I guess the question then is if we do not use PoC what term should we use? Well, as discussed in my previous blog, how about we not label people based on their colour?

In any case, being part of a majority and minority ethnic group is contextual. In other words, anyone can be a member of a majority group or a majority group depending on their location. For example, China has just over 18% of the world population, compared to the UK at 0.87%. Yet, a Chinese national in the UK is classed as a minority.

Hence, labelling people as being a minority or majority ought to be in recognition of the contextualised nature of such a grouping.

As it stands, the narrow compartmentalisation of ethnic groups in a particular context does not provide a comparative basis for understanding their experiences. For example, it would seem absurd to conduct ‘BAME’ (Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic) research in, for example, China (majority Asian) or in Nigeria (majority Nigerians). Should we then devise other labels like ‘BWME’ (Black, White, Minority Ethnic), or ‘WAME’ (White, Asian, Minority Ethnic) to examine the experiences of people based on their colour/ethnicity in research conducted in China and in Ghana respectively? I don’t think so.

So rather than a racialised or coloured appellation, can we recognise that an ethnic group can be minoritized in context? We can therefore refer to minoritized ethnic group (MEG) or a minoritized ethnic person (MEP). We can then examine or research the experiences of MEGs in different contexts. This may allow us to conduct meaningful comparative research about MEGs in different climes. Given the current world order, this will of necessity include a critical analysis of the western hegemonic power structures as I wrote in this co-authored article and continuing critical interrogation of the persisting impact of colonialism on the world order.

This blog restates my previous appeal that there is a need for open and honest conversations on living in a post-colonial world. Such conversations will require the involvement of diverse stakeholders.

Important update

I want to thank everyone that has engaged with my blog posts for the past years. I want to announce that I have just signed a book contract which I would need to focus on for the next year. I will therefore be taking a break from blogging in the next couple of months.

With thanks and my best regards!

Photo by Miles Peacock on Unsplash