Originally published here.

In the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (US), it is suggested that a Eurocentric or white-centric worldview exists. Following Ray’s (2019) assertion that organisations are racial structures, this worldview will be perpetuated within major organisations (Kilvington, 2019); Whiteness is the norm against which all others are measured, with anyone from different backgrounds classed as ‘others’. King (2005: 399) states how Whiteness is “a complex, often contradictory, construction: ubiquitous, yet invisible; normalized and normative; universal, but always localized; unmarked, yet privileged”. The white skin of an individual is rarely highlighted (and is essentially invisible), whereas the skin colour of those considered to be non-white continues to be cited (albeit possibly unconsciously) as a determining factor of ability and status (Wilson, 2010). Thus, skin colour continues to play a greater role in the lives of those from non-white backgrounds when compared to individuals who are white (Bhatia, 2020).

Another colonial hangover is the (in)appropriateness of language used within societies. In particular, legislative terminology that categorises members of society based on their ethnicity can often be a tool for exclusion and/or privilege. BAME has become the catch-all term in the UK for anyone from Black, Asian or ‘minority ethnic’ communities. While there has been a recent push to embrace the term Global Majority in recognition that those placed on the ‘other’ side of the racial dichotomy outnumber the privileged, white, Western minority (Campbell-Stephens, 2021) and even despite an independent report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (2021) recommending that aggregated terms such as BAME should not be used, they remain in widespread use. In other contexts, a variety of terminology is adopted that also presents race as a dichotomy. In the US, the use of Person/People of Colour (POC) conflates many diverse populations and silences their voices (Al-Yagout, 2017). Similarly problematic is the term ‘visible minority’, which has been adopted by government in Canada (Bauer et al., 2020). Even the individual terms within the acronym, such as Black and Asian cannot capture a multiplicity of experiences both within and across very different peoples (Rankin-Wright and Hylton, 2020).

In 2020 two global ‘events’ have refocussed attention on social inequalities felt by BAME communities that stem from the colonial past of Whiteness. The Black Lives Matter movement has led to widespread protests against structural and societal injustice and resulted in questions around the suitability of various symbols and traditions that are linked to colonialism (Author, 2020). Second, the Covid-19 pandemic has impacted non-white communities to a greater extent in terms of both the number of cases and mortality rates when compared to the white local population (Bhatia, 2020), giving rise to questions around the systemic subordination of those from BAME communities. Such acronyms group disparate experiences together for administrative purposes and there has been increased media debate around the suitability of the term (see Malik, 2020), but surprisingly researchers have yet to empirically explore individuals’ views on the BAME acronym. There is frequently a disjuncture between the terminology adopted by communities to describe themselves and that imposed on them by institutions and those outside the communities. Aspinall (2020a: 1) describes “racial/ethnic terminology” as “contested, contentious, dynamic, and slippery”. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to critically examine perceptions and attitudes towards the BAME acronym. We adopted Critical Race Theory (CRT) and an intersectional lens to evaluate 15 semi-structured interviews with women from these communities who worked as coaches in Association football - an industry that has traditionally been hyper-masculinised and white-dominated, particularly in terms of leadership positions (Burton, 2015) and, if we accept that organisations are racial structures, a site where daily, routine organisational processes connect racial schemas to material and social resources (Ray, 2019). Through giving voice to these counterstories, we expose “how lived experiences are shaped by, but also challenge and resist authoritative discourses” around institutional language (Crump, 2014: 213). Such narratives, which detail the experiences of institutionalised racism through the voices of the oppressed, are important as they both humanise structural inequality and further challenge dominant ideologies and master narratives (Han and Price, 2015).

We have provided analytical insight into institutional language within football coaching and shed new light onto the tensions and discomforts that arise from its use to distinguish between individuals on the basis of race. Although the BAME acronym was seen as preferable to overtly racist terms, it caused discomfort for our participants and had, until recently, necessitated a grudging acceptance and ‘thick skin’. This finding highlights that far from being colour-blind, sport continues to highlight difference and to reinforce racial hierarchies. By adopting institutional language, football organizations continue to privilege Whiteness. Furthermore, given that our participants were women working in a traditionally male-dominated industry, the potential for marginalisation is increased due to the intersectionality of race and gender.

Positive action measures enacted by organizations offers potential for reducing racial inequality but it requires careful consideration. The use of labelling to identify individuals in BAME-specific employment positions in football was shown to impact on their confidence and create additional layers of anxiety. In this instance, the language used created intersections of audible and visible identity, which highlights difference; difference that specifically reinforces social and historical notions of supremacy based on race. This insecurity serves to further position these individuals as others and weakens their sense of belonging within the football industry, thus reinforcing the power base of the dominant groups that invariably make these decisions. As such, access to employment positions and related influence remains controlled by white males, legitimising the white racial frame, even when, for all appearances, steps are being taken to address inequalities.

Hegemonic Whiteness is at present embedded within the senior organizational tiers of the football industry – without either change to the current structures or to the culture of the organizations these issues will persist. That said, change at a micro level could be realised by football (and other sporting) organizations being mindful of current practices. In light of our findings, we provide two recommendations for change. First, the FA should reflect on their use of language and recognise that the classification systems that are typically used are historical formations that may no longer be suitable. We recommend moving away from using the BAME acronym. They should be proactive in jettisoning racialised institutional language and develop a system that allows individuals to self-identify. As such, the use of ‘tick boxes’ for ethnicity classification purposes should be replaced by an option for participants to describe their heritage and background, recognising and embracing the beautiful complexity that is present in multicultural societies. Second, football organizations should be mindful that appointments based on race, which are often used to provide ‘happy stories of diversity’ (Ahmed, 2007), actually serve to reinforce racial power dynamics and institutions would be better placed to examine the institutional habits that create the issues. Adopting positive action measures should be carefully planned with the involvement (and hence empowerment) of those they are designed to serve.

Finally, as a call for further research and theorisation in this area, we note that although LangCrit has proved useful in language studies at a general level, a more suitable theory (we suggest the Critical study of institutional language) is needed for institutional communication to capture the nuanced yet significant and ongoing influence of Whiteness in creating structural inequalities.  

You can read the complete article here.