Abstract
Little has been mentioned of race within the pages of International Journal of Cross Cultural Management yet it is such a large part of our cultural identity that it would seem worthy of some (critical) attention among cross-cultural management scholars. Yet, it is an issue that is often politically charged, sometimes embroiled with racism and an issue that many scholars would rather leave alone.
Certainly within the cross-cultural psychological study of intelligence, its early history was not a happy one. The opening couple of sentences of the blurb to a very (in)famous 1970s book of a respectable authority on intelligence and its measurement, Hans Eysenck (1971) Race, Intelligence and Education reads ‘Are negroes as a race intellectually different from whites? A recent theory suggests that they are and that the difference is due not to differences in opportunity but to race itself’. I remember reading this book with some trepidation (if not distaste) while an undergraduate. The thrust of his argument, following Jensen in the United States, concerning African populations in America was that the less intelligent of West Africans were the ones caught as slaves and shipped to America, ‘…then the gene pool of the slaves brought to America would have been depleted of many high-IQ genes’ (p. 46). Conversely, ‘Other groups, like the Irish, probably showed the opposite tendency; it was the more intelligent members of these groups who emigrated to the USA, leaving their less intelligent brethren behind’ (p. 47). IQ testing and the debate between nurture and nature was a big issue in the 1970 with one of the main proponent of the hereditary school, Sir Cyril Burt (a major pioneer of psychometrics), not only falsifying his data on monozygotic twins reared apart but also inventing the two research assistants collecting the data. These theories largely fell into disrepute after these episodes and probably influenced a caution towards including race as a variable in cross-cultural studies.
The problem with race
This may well be a factor today in there being a problem with race in cross-cultural management studies. As a subject it is largely ignored, or assumed. There is a lack of research in this area, and it does not fit easily into existing (and perhaps safe) research agendas. It vaguely exists in the area of ‘diversity’ but most scholars are reluctant to tackle it head on. It does not easily fit with concepts of ‘culture’, and this may be that it is altogether more political, and best to be avoided. Yet, race is one of the most pertinent factors in the modern, globalized world. It is anchored in a very dark heritage. The debates of the 1970s are still implicit if not overt as they were then. They still raise their heads in issues such as migration. And they are power laden. We cannot understand them if we do not have a concept of power dynamics in our cross-cultural scholarship.
The heritage of the slave trade
The heritage of the slave trade and colonization of the global South have left an indelible if not always an overt mark on the psyche of the West and the non-West and on modern civilization as a whole.
The story of the slave trade is well known and gruesome. Kehinde Andrews, an associate professor of sociology at Birmingham City University, UK, and a prominent researcher on race and racism, has a very clear message: the West was built on racism. Within any critical analysis of our scholarship, this should be a serious premise. The introduction to his video article on The Guardian online reads: Dead white men are revered by many as responsible for the advancement of civilisation, says sociology professor Kehinde Andrews. But, he argues, this so-called progress came at the expense of millions of people of colour. Global inequality is not an accident, he argues – it is designed to keep the hierarchy of race intact. (TheGuardian.com, 2017)
The cultural interpretation of race
Mahadevan (2017: 91) tells us that: …people tend to speak of “race” in North American contexts, of “ethnicity” in Western Europe, and of “migration background” in countries such as Germany wherein the category “race” is historically laden and national identification is rooted in presumed ethnic homogeneity…this reminds us that the labels wherein we frame difference are linked to our own cultural glasses, even on a scholarly level
In the literature on Whiteness Studies, McDermott and Samson (2005: 248) previously wrote that: Much of the research on white racial identity during the past ten years has focused on how whiteness, and the privileges associated with whiteness, remain invisible to many whites, especially those with limited interracial contact (…). Instead, whiteness is normative (…), an unexamined default racial category. Although many nonwhites, especially African Americans, are confronted with their race on a daily basis (…), many whites do not think of themselves as really having a race at all. In this respect, white is an unmarked identity, such as heterosexual or middle-aged (…).
America, like Britain and countries in Western Europe, have changed significantly over the last few decades, rendering both the concept of one American identity and the basis of cross-cultural studies such as Hofstede’s, GLOBE and others facile. It is interesting that in the more recent GLOBE study, South African samples are taken of both White and Black, and Canadian samples are taken from English and French speakers, yet the much larger United States is taken as one sample. In the 2000 US census, out of a total population of nearly 249 million, 75.1 per cent said they were White or Caucasian, 21.36 per cent (60 million) claimed German descent, 12.3 per cent said they were Black or of African America descent and 12.5 per cent Hispanic. Three point six per cent were Asian (US Census Bureau).
Yet as the historian Nell Irvin Painter (2011) reminds us in The History of White People ‘Race is an idea, not a fact’.
Just as Ahluwalia (2001) has argued that ‘Africa’ is a Western invention arising from colonialism, we can also contend that ‘race’ can be seen as mainly a Western invention – as a concept and a category. It is power-laden, in the same way as the phrase ‘When Africa was discovered’ or for that matter ‘When America was discovered’. Yet does this mean we, as cross-cultural scholars, should ignore ‘race’, put it to one side and not examine it?
I think Mahadevan (2017: 98) has the answer to this. She talks about ‘reading between the lines’, or as Jacques Derrida (1978) termed it ‘deconstruction’.
This involves examining the binaries, or dichotomies, we use in conceptualizing race (White/Black), the power relations from which this is drawn and its power implication. This can also be extended to the implied superiority/inferiority in cross-cultural management theory that involves difference (individualism/collectivism and low–high power distance).
How should we study race?
In conclusion, race is not the same as culture, but it is culturally determined with power dynamics in play. As it is cultural determined, in terms of its categorizations, for example, and as this has significant implications for workplace interactions and how these are managed, it is a legitimate area of study for cross-cultural management scholars. Yet, it is often neglected in our research agendas, perhaps as it is not seen as relevant, or maybe seen as too political. In some ways, this is surprising as we are familiar with the issues of racial stereotyping and with racial prejudice in the workplace and elsewhere. We are beginning to take a critical note of the issues of doing business with Others (or ‘Othering’ as it is known in the critical literature) where stereotyping and more subtle factors come into play. Some colleagues are beginning to tackle the issues of management in international development which is still rife with power dynamics, patronizing attitudes and inappropriate actions and policies, which appear to stem from the colonial heritage of world powers.
We need a clearer definition and description of race as a historical and therefore a cultural construct: There is nothing Black and White about race other than the categories that have been imposed.
We need a clearer understanding of the power dynamics at play and the intrinsic political nature of our subject area: We are dealing with relationships between people, and therefore it goes with the territory.
We need to be more strongly introspective about our own work and the concepts and categories we use. We need to be clearer about the overall context within which we work and how it affects who we are, what we think and what we do. By context, I mean the global, historical, cultural and politically relational circumstances through which we live and work.
The idea of race is part of our culture. It needs to be interrogated and understood by scholars who are equipped to study culture in an international and global world of work.