2004
Volume 65, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0043-5414
  • E-ISSN: 1875-709X

Abstract

Abstract

Sara Ahmed’s work shows how diversity discourses shape institutional life within universities. Three related concepts in this work are ‘non-performativity’, ‘doing the document’, and ‘plumbing’. In this essay, we examine these concepts in the context of diversity policy within Dutch universities and municipalities. We draw from ethnographic fieldwork to expose how commitments to diversity fail to effect change, how policies circulate without profoundly altering institutional practices, and how administrators strategically navigate institutional resistance. By doing so, we give these concepts a specific situated understanding for the Netherlands. In addition, based on our material, we engage with and advance two arguments from Ahmed’s work. First, we argue that using data as ‘institutional switch’ lays bare bureaucratic anxieties about reproducing institutional racism. Second, we reveal how doing the document engages in a white politics of time. We end with a note about breaking the ‘brick wall’ and embracing alternative ways of being, thinking, and relating. This means finding each other despite institutional isolation, especially when institutions see us as ‘the problem’. This also means attentive listening, seeing, and learning from uncomfortable histories that shape our present. Only then we can dismantle whiteness.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/WP2025.1.003.ESSA
2025-02-01
2025-04-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Essanhaji, Z. (2023a). Decomposing the Diversity Problem of the University: On Moving on from White Problems towards New Horizons. Proefschrift. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Essanhaji, Z. (2023b). The (im)possibility of complaint: On efforts of inverting and (en)countering the university. Gender and Education, 35(8), 758-773.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Essanhaji, Z. & R.van Reekum (2022). Following diversity through the university: On knowing and embodying a problem. The Sociological Review, 70(5), 882-900.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Essanhaji, Z. & R.van Reekum (2023). A matter of time: Differential enactments of institutional time in diversity policy documents. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 44(4), 720-737.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Essed, P. & K.Nimako (2006). Designs and (co) incidents: Cultures of scholarship and public policy on immigrants/minorities in the Netherlands. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 47(3-4), 281-312.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Movisie (2022). Geen ruimte voor discriminatie: Handreiking voor gemeenten voor het tegengaan van anti-Zwart racisme, antisemitisme, anti-moslim racisme, antiziganisme en lhbti+ discriminatie. www.movisie.nl/sites/movisie.nl/files/2022-07/geen-ruimte-voor-discriminatie-12-7-2022.pdf
  8. Veer, L. van der (2024). Knowledge-infrastructure for social equality policies. Presentatie op de EASA-conferentie (European Association of Social Anthropologists), Barcelona, juli2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Veer, L. van der & L.Westerveen (2024). Doing diversity durably: Challenges and strategies in putting diversity into practice in The Netherlands. Presentatie op de IMISCOE-conferentie (International Migration Research Network), Lissabon, juni2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Wekker, G. (2016). White Innocence: Paradoxes of Clonialism and Race. Durham: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/WP2025.1.003.ESSA
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error