A Critique of Vanishing Voice in Noncooperative Spaces: The Perspective of an Aspirant Black Female Intellectual Activist

Abstract

We adopt and extend the concept of ‘noncooperative space’ to analyze how (aspirant) black women intellectual activists attempt to sustain their efforts within settings that publicly endorse racial equality, while, in practice, the contexts remain deeply racist. Noncooperative spaces reflect institutional, organizational, and social environments portrayed by powerful white agents as conducive to anti-racism work and promoting racial equality but, indeed, constrain individuals who challenge racism. Our work, which is grounded in intersectionality, draws on an autoethnographic account of racially motivated domestic violence suffered by our lead author. Our analysis suggests that (aspirant) black women intellectual activists must develop courage to sustain their ‘voice’ within noncooperative spaces. However, the three interlinked dimensions of noncooperative spaces—namely, deceiving design, hegemonic actors’ indifference to racism, and (some assimilated gatekeepers’) false equivalence—may gradually erode a black female scholar’s courage. This forces her ‘voice’ to vanish temporarily, or even permanently. Courage is thus fragile and depletable. Yet, courage can be regenerated, resulting in regaining voice. Consequently, we propose courageous collective action by white allies and black and brown individuals who voluntarily and officially cooperate within and across various spaces to achieve racial equality.

Black Scholarship: Autoethnographies and Epistemic (in)Justice

“…I subsequently illustrate the above stated point by reflecting on my collaborative autoethnography concerning how I suffered a racially aggravated domestic assault, and was temporarily 'homeless' at the height of a teaching term and the Covid-19 pandemic (Muzanenhamo, & Chowdhury, 2022). I proceed by addressing the paradox of fear and freedom against the backdrop of hope in the sections that I have identified below as: The first timefloodgates opened; Trembling like a reed -The revise and resubmit process, and; the Acceptance -What a dreadful world.…”

“…When I sat down for the first time to write about how I had been physically assaulted by a white female housemate that I had invited into my rented home (see Muzanenhamo, & Chowdhury, 2022), I felt immensely relieved. Such relief embodied freedom and it was (temporarily) liberating.…”

“…Thus, to redress epistemic injustice and its negative effects as Black (and Brown) scholars, we attempt to 'tell our stories' and immerse readers in our social realities to inspire action towards social justice. Emancipatory storytelling (e.g., hooks, 2000) evolves as poetry, autobiographies (Angelou, 2013;Davis, 2022) and autoethnographies (e.g., Bell, & Nkomo, 1999;Muzanenhamo, & Chowdhury, 2022).…”

Toward a Theory of Marginalized Stakeholder-Centric Entrepreneurship

“…Implicit bias occurs when prejudices and stereotypes are (un)intentionally perpetuated (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;Levy, 2012). Researchers have long suggested that such implicit biases are institutionalized (Banks & Ford, 2009;Medina, 2012) and skew normative views in a particular way (e.g., Ghoshal, 2005;Muzanenhamo & Chowdhury, 2022Willmott, 2011). Breaking free from such epistemic biases is difficult (Medina, 2012) because, often, identity and dignity violations of MSs are normalized and become embedded into social structures.…”

Misrepresentation of Marginalized Groups: A Critique of Epistemic Neocolonialism

“…This subsequently limits adequate representation of these groups in academic work (not only publications, but also various disseminating mediums, such as teaching, consultancy, and conferences). Such misrepresentation processes are then normalized over time in academic discourse, either in the absence of authentic accounts or voices (Alves, 2013;Muzanenhamo & Chowdhury, 2022a), or because the marginalized group could not find a fair and proportionate opportunity to contradict and challenge their misrepresentation by the researchers (Cruz, 2014;Mudimbe, 1988;Muzanenhamo & Chowdhury, 2022b). In the latter case, even if researchers have access to marginalized groups, they may choose to interview members without due diligence (e.g., without capturing the special situation and circumstances of marginalized groups) and, thus, perpetuate epistemic neocolonialism (Muhammad et al, 2015).…”